37942 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

The Proposal 

The FAA proposes an amendment to 

14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E 

surface airspace for East Hampton 

Airport, East Hampton, NY, providing 

the controlled airspace required to 

support aircraft landing and departing 

in IFR conditions at this airport. In 

addition, this action would amend Class 

D airspace by decreasing the radius to 

4.2 miles (from 4.8) and the ceiling to 

2,000 feet MSL (from 2,500) and 

replacing the outdated term Airport/ 

Facility Directory with the term Chart 

Supplement in the airport description. 

Class D and E airspace designations 

are published in Paragraphs 5000 and 

6002, respectively, of FAA Order 

7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D and E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in the 

Order. 

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.11E, 

Airspace Designations, and Reporting 

Points, dated July 21, 2020, and 

effective September 15, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA NY D East Hampton, NY [Amended] 

East Hampton Airport, NY 

(Lat. 40°57′34′′ N, long. 72°15′06′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface up to and including 2,000 feet MSL 

within a 4.2-mile radius of East Hampton 

Airport. This Class D airspace area is 

effective during specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA NY0522 E2 East Hampton, NY [New] 

East Hampton Airport, NY 

(Lat. 40°57′34′′ N, long. 72°15′06′′ W) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 4.2-mile radius of East 

Hampton Airport. This Class E airspace area 

is effective during specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 13, 

2021. 

Matthew N. Cathcart, 

Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15220 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0156; FRL–8697–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; 

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) 

for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Through this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘supplemental proposal’’ or 

‘‘SNPRM’’), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is 

supplementing its proposed approval of 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submissions from Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina 

(four Southeastern States), addressing 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

interstate transport requirements for the 

2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

standard). Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to rely on updated analysis 

using a 2021 analytic year to support the 

proposed finding that each state’s 

implementation plan contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit emissions that 

will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2019–0156, at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37943 

1The submittals from these six southeastern 

states were submitted separately under the 

following cover letters: Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management dated August 20, 2018 

(received by EPA on August 27, 2018); Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection dated 

September 18, 2018 (received by EPA on September 

26, 2018); Georgia Environmental Protection 

Division dated September 19, 2018 (received by 

EPA on September 24, 2018); North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality dated 

September 27, 2018 (received by EPA October 10, 

2018); South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control dated and received by EPA 

on September 7, 2018; and Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation dated September 

13, 2018 (received by EPA on September 17, 2018). 

2On March 24, 2020, former EPA Region 4 

Administrator Mary Walker signed a document 

(hereinafter referred to as the March 24, 2020 

document) that EPA intended to become a final rule 

upon publication in the Federal Register. However, 

the March 24, 2020 document was never published 

in the Federal Register. Further, on January 19, 

2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary 

Walker signed a document (hereinafter referred to 

as the January 19, 2021 document), which EPA 

posted to its website at https://www.epa.gov/airquality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015- 

8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements. 

EPA noted in that posting ‘‘Notwithstanding the 

fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication 

version, the final rule will not be promulgated until 

published in the Federal Register.’’ EPA will not 

publish either the March 24, 2020 document or the 

January 19, 2021 document in the Federal Register; 

therefore, neither document will result in a final 

rule. 

3See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see 

also Emissions Modeling TSD titled ‘‘Preparation of 

Emissions Inventories for the 2016v1 North 

American Emissions Modeling Platform.’’ This TSD 

is available in the docket for this proposed action 

and at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/ 

2016v1-platform. The underlying modeling files are 

available on data drives in the Docket office for 

public review. See the docket for the Revised 

CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–0272). See 

also in the docket for this supplemental proposal 

the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data 

Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a file inventory and 

instructions on how to access the modeling files. 

4See 86 FR 23054. 

making effective comments, please visit 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

Mr. Adams can be reached by telephone 

at (404) 562–9009, or via electronic mail 

at adams.evan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background for This Supplemental 

Proposal 

On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed 

to approve SIP submissions from six 

Southeast States (i.e., Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Tennessee) 1 as meeting the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the 

Good Neighbor provision, for the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854. 

Refer to the December 30, 2019, notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an 

explanation of the CAA requirements, 

the four-step framework that EPA 

applies under the Good Neighbor 

provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed 

summary of the state submissions, and 

EPA’s proposed rationale for approval. 

See 84 FR 71854. The public comment 

period for the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM closed on January 29, 2020.2

Subsequent to the December 30, 2019, 

proposal, two events occurred which 

have caused EPA to adjust its analysis 

of the aforementioned SIP submissions, 

and consequently, to issue this 

supplemental proposal. First, on May 

19, 2020, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in 

Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. 

Cir. 2020) (Maryland). That case 

involved EPA’s denial of administrative 

petitions filed by the states of Maryland 

and Delaware under CAA section 

126(b), seeking to have EPA impose 

emissions limits on sources in upwind 

states alleged to be emitting in violation 

of the Good Neighbor Provision. The 

court held that EPA must address Good 

Neighbor obligations consistent with the 

2021 attainment date for downwind 

areas classified as being in Marginal 

nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, ‘‘not at some later date.’’ 

958 F.3d at 1203–04 (citing Wisconsin v. 

EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2019) 

(Wisconsin)). The court disagreed with 

EPA that use of a 2023 analytic year, 

consistent with the 2024 attainment 

date for areas classified as being in 

Moderate nonattainment, was a proper 

reading of the court’s earlier decision in 

Wisconsin. Id. at 1204. In light of the 

Maryland decision, EPA is evaluating 

these states’ Good Neighbor obligations 

using a 2021 analytic year, 

corresponding to the 2021 Marginal area 

attainment date under the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA 

released and accepted public comment 

on updated 2023 modeling that used the 

2016 emissions platform developed 

under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional 

Organization (MJO)/state collaborative 

project as the primary source for the 

base year and future year emissions 

data.3 On April 30, 2021, EPA published 

the final Revised Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update using 

the same modeling that was made 

publicly available in the proposed 

rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR 

Update.4 Although that modeling 

focused on the year 2023, EPA 

conducted an ‘‘interpolation’’ analysis 

of these modeling results to generate air 

quality and contribution values for the 

2021 analytic year, consistent with the 

Maryland holding, as the relevant 

analytic year for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

This new modeling and analysis now 

provides the primary basis for EPA’s 

proposed approval of the Good 

Neighbor SIP submissions for Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina. By relying on the updated 

modeling results, EPA is using the most 

current and technically appropriate 

information as the primary basis for this 

proposed rulemaking. As explained in 

greater detail in this supplemental 

proposal, this new analysis indicates 

that in 2021, these four states are not 

projected to impact any downwind 

states at or above a contribution 

threshold of one percent of the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is 

equivalent to 0.70 parts per billion 

(ppb). Thus, EPA is proposing to 

approve these four states’ submissions. 

Additionally, EPA previously 

proposed to approve infrastructure SIP 

elements submitted to fulfill the 

interstate transport requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the 

states of Alabama and Tennessee for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

December 30, 2019, NPRM referenced 

above. This supplemental proposal does 

not address these submissions, and EPA 

is deferring action on the referenced SIP 

submissions from Alabama and 

Tennessee at this time. 

II. EPA’s Analysis 

On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit 

issued the Maryland decision that cited 

the Wisconsin decision in holding that 

EPA must assess the impact of interstate 

transport on air quality at the next 

downwind attainment date, including 

Marginal area attainment dates, in 

evaluating the basis for EPA’s denial of 

a petition under CAA section 126(b). 

See 958 F.3d 1185, 1203–04. The court 

noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates 

the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and 

therefore ‘‘the EPA must find a violation 

[of section 126] if an upwind source will 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment at the next downwind 

attainment deadline. Therefore, EPA 

must evaluate downwind air quality at 

that deadline, not at some later date.’’ 

Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA 

interprets the court’s holding in 

Maryland as requiring the Agency, 

under the Good Neighbor provision, to 

address Good Neighbor obligations by 

the next applicable attainment date for 

downwind areas, including a Marginal 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37944 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA notes that the court in Maryland did not 

have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which 

EPA may determine that an upwind linkage to a 

downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 

2 of the four-step interstate transport framework by 

a particular attainment date, but for reasons of 

impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency is 

unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by 

that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. 

Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient 

showing, these circumstances may warrant a certain 

degree of flexibility in effectuating the 

implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. 

Such circumstances are not at issue in this 

proposed action. 

6The December 30, 2019, NPRM incorrectly 

referred to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS Marginal 

attainment date as August 2, 2021, and the 

Moderate attainment date as August 2, 2024. See 84 

FR 71857. 

7EPA recognizes that Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina as well as other states 

may have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance 

memoranda (issued prior to the Wisconsin and 

Maryland decisions) in making Good Neighbor 

submissions that relied on EPA’s modeling of 2023. 

When there are intervening changes in relevant law 

or legal interpretation of CAA requirements, states 

are generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or 

re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis 

(in compliance with CAA procedures for SIP 

submissions). While Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina have not done this, as 

explained in this section, EPA’s proposed 

independent analysis concludes that the states’ 

submissions in this instance are approvable. 

8While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice 

on the year 2021, the Revised CSAPR Update 

modeling data in years 2023 and 2028 confirm that 

no new linkages to downwind receptors are 

projected for these states in later years. EPA notes 

this is consistent with an overall, long-term 

downward trend in emissions from these states. See 

Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also Air 

Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for 

the final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Update,’’ available in the docket for this proposed 

action and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revisedcross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. The results of 

this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the 

docket for this proposed action titled ‘‘Ozone 

Design Values and Contributions for the Revised 

CSAPR Update.xlsx’’. 

9See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The 

Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach. 

See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same 

concept, relying on both current monitoring data 

and modeling to define nonattainment receptor, 

was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 

14, 2005). See also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913– 

914 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s approach to 

defining nonattainment in CAIR). 

area attainment date under CAA section 

181 for ozone nonattainment.5

The Marginal area attainment date for 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 

August 3, 2021.6 See CAA section 181(a); 

40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 

2018, effective August 3, 2018). 

Historically, EPA has considered the 

last full ozone season prior to the 

attainment date as supplying an 

appropriate analytic year for assessing 

Good Neighbor obligations. See, e.g., 81 

FR 74540. While this would be 2020 for 

an August 2021 attainment date (which 

falls within the 2021 ozone season 

running from May 1 to September 30), 

in this circumstance, when the 2020 

ozone season is wholly in the past, it is 

appropriate to focus on 2021 to address 

Good Neighbor obligations to the extent 

possible by the 2021 attainment date. 

EPA does not believe it would be 

appropriate to select an analytic year 

that is wholly in the past because EPA 

interprets the Good Neighbor provision 

as forward looking. See 85 FR 68964, 

68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 

322. Consequently, as discussed further 

below, EPA is using the analytic year of 

2021 in this supplemental proposal to 

evaluate Good Neighbor obligations for 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina with respect to the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The December 30, 2019, NPRM 

proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina predates the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in Maryland. This decision 

also came after the close of the public 

comment period on the December 30, 

2019, NPRM. However, this decision 

bears directly on EPA’s action and its 

consideration of the comments received 

on the December 30, 2019, NPRM. As 

discussed above and in accordance with 

the Wisconsin and Maryland decisions, 

the Agency considers 2021 to be the 

relevant analytic year for the purpose of 

determining whether sources in Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other states. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP 

submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are approvable using a 2021 

analytic year. The SIP submissions from 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina rely on analysis of the 

year 2023 to show that they do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. However, 

given the holdings in Wisconsin and 

Maryland, analysis of that year is no 

longer sufficient where the next 

attainment date for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is in 2021.7 Nonetheless, 

the analysis EPA has conducted for the 

2021 analytic year corroborates the 

conclusion reached in each state’s 

submission and in the December 30, 

2019, NPRM. In accordance with the 

holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, 

EPA’s supplemental analysis relies on 

2021 as the relevant attainment year for 

evaluating Good Neighbor obligations 

for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina with respect to the 2015 

8-hour ozone NAAQS using the same 

four-step interstate transport framework 

described in the proposal of this action. 

See 84 FR 71855. 

In step 1, EPA identifies locations 

where the Agency expects there to be 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on analysis of ozone 

concentrations at individual monitoring 

sites in the appropriate analytic year. 

Where EPA’s analysis shows that a 

monitoring site does not fall under the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor in the analytic 

year, that site is excluded from further 

analysis under EPA’s four-step interstate 

transport framework.8 For monitoring 

sites that are identified as 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

in the appropriate analytic year, EPA 

proceeds to step 2 of the four-step 

interstate transport framework by 

identifying whether emissions in 

upwind states contribute to those 

receptors in amounts that exceed a 

contribution threshold. 

EPA’s approach to identifying ozone 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in this supplemental proposal 

is consistent with the approach 

described in the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM, and is the same approach used 

in previous transport rulemakings. 

EPA’s approach gives independent 

consideration to both the ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ and the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ prongs of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s 

direction in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896, 910–911 (2008) (holding that 

EPA must give ‘‘independent 

significance’’ to each prong of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

For the purpose of this supplemental 

proposal, EPA identifies nonattainment 

receptors as those monitoring sites that 

are projected to have average design 

values that exceed the NAAQS and that 

are also measuring nonattainment based 

on the most recent monitored design 

values. This approach is consistent with 

prior transport rulemakings, such as 

CSAPR Update, where EPA defined 

nonattainment receptors as those areas 

that both currently monitor 

nonattainment and that EPA projects 

will be in nonattainment in the future 

compliance year.9

In addition, in this supplemental 

proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be 

a ‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes 

of defining interference with 

maintenance, consistent with the 

method used in CSAPR and upheld by 

the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37945 

10See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR 

Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this 

approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and 

86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). 11Further, as recognized by the court in 

Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320, nonattainment areas 

that do not measure an exceedance of the level of 

the standard in a given year, even if not sufficient 

to be redesignated to attainment based on the threeyear design value, may qualify for up to two oneyear extensions of their attainment dates, as 

provided at CAA section 181(a)(5). Thus, simply 

providing the value that would be needed in 2020 

in order for an area to be designated to attainment 

using the three-year average does not present a 

complete picture of the likelihood that an area will 

be ‘‘reclassified’’ or ‘‘bumped-up.’’ 

12 ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’ 

March 27, 2018, available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/ 

transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf and available in 

the docket for this SNPRM. 

13See 86 FR 23054. The results of this modeling 

are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this 

proposed action titled Ozone Design Values and 

Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx. The 

underlying modeling files are available on data 

drives in the Docket office for public review under 

the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0272). See also in the docket for 

this proposed action the document titled Air 

Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a 

file inventory and instructions on how to access the 

modeling files. 

14See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule Update,’’ available in the docket for this 

supplemental proposal and at https://www.epa.gov/ 

csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. 

This TSD was originally developed to support 

EPA’s action in the Revised CSAPR Update, as 

relating to outstanding Good Neighbor obligations 

under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While 

developed in this separate context, the data and 

modeling outputs, including interpolated design 

values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect to 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and used in support 

of this supplemental proposed action. 

15This supplemental proposal relies on the same 

contribution threshold of one percent of the 

NAAQS proposed in the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM. See 85 FR 68964. 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 

136 (DC Cir. 2015).10 Specifically, 

monitoring sites with a maximum 

projected design value in 2021 that 

exceeds the NAAQS are identified as 

maintenance receptors in 2021. EPA’s 

method of defining these receptors takes 

into account both measured data and 

reasonable projections based on 

modeling analysis.11

Recognizing that nonattainment 

receptors are also, by definition, 

maintenance receptors, EPA often uses 

the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to 

receptors that are not also 

nonattainment receptors. Consistent 

with the methodology described above, 

monitoring sites with a projected 

maximum design value that exceeds the 

NAAQS, but with a projected average 

design value that is below the NAAQS, 

are identified as maintenance-only 

receptors. In addition, those sites that 

are currently measuring ozone 

concentrations below the level of the 

applicable NAAQS, but are projected to 

be nonattainment based on the average 

design value and that, by definition, are 

projected to have a maximum design 

value above the standard are also 

identified as maintenance-only 

receptors. 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina relied on the modeling 

included in an EPA memorandum dated 

March 2018 (‘‘March 2018 

memorandum’’),12 as well as state 

specific ozone precursor emission 

trends, design values, and regulations, 

to develop their SIPs as EPA had 

suggested. In the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM, EPA also relied on the modeling 

results included in the March 2018 

memorandum. See 84 FR 71855–71856, 

71859–71861. However, EPA is now 

supplementing the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM with newly available, updated 

modeling that was developed using a 

2016-based modeling platform prepared 

under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional 

Organization/state collaborative) 

project.13 The results of this updated 

modeling were released with the NPRM 

for the Revised CSAPR Update on 

October 30, 2020, and finalized in the 

final Revised CSAPR Update without 

changes. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 

2021). The updated modeling includes 

2016 base year and 2023 projection year 

model simulations that were analyzed to 

identify receptors and determine 

interstate ozone contributions to these 

receptors in 2021. Specifically, EPA 

developed an interpolation technique 

based on modeling for 2023 and 

measured ozone data to determine 

ozone design values for 2021. To 

estimate average and maximum design 

values for 2021, EPA first performed air 

quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to 

project measured 2016 design values to 

2023. The 2023 design values were then 

coupled with the corresponding 2016 

measured design values to estimate 

design values in 2021. The Air Quality 

Modeling technical support document 

(TSD) developed in connection with the 

Revised CSAPR Update, which is 

included in the docket for this 

supplemental proposal, describes the 

modeling and interpolation for 

estimating design values in 2021.14

EPA’s analysis for this supplemental 

proposal, supported by the modeling 

analysis completed in the Revised 

CSAPR Update, further substantiates 

EPA’s proposed approval in the 

December 30, 2019, NPRM. To quantify 

the contribution of emissions from 

specific upwind states on 2021 8-hour 

design values for the identified 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, EPA first 

performed nationwide, state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling for 

2023. The source apportionment 

modeling provided contributions to 

ozone from precursor emissions of 

anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

in each state, individually. The modeled 

2023 contributions were then applied in 

a relative sense to the 2021 average 

design value to estimate the 

contributions in 2021 from each state to 

each receptor. Details on the source 

apportionment modeling and the 

methods for determining contributions 

in 2021 are in the Air Quality Modeling 

TSD in the docket. 

The 2021 design values and 

contributions were examined to 

determine if Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina contribute 

at or above the threshold of one percent 

of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 

ppb) to any downwind nonattainment 

or maintenance receptor.15 Table 1 

presents the highest contribution in 

2021 from Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina to a 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE-ONLY

RECEPTORS IN 2021 16

State 

Maximum 

contribution 

(ppb) 

Downwind receptor 

County State AQS ID 

Florida ............................................................................................................... 0.34 Galveston ............. TX 481671034 

Georgia ............................................................................................................. 0.39 Fairfield ................. CT 90011123 

North Carolina ................................................................................................... 0.69 Fairfield ................. CT 90011123 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37946 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

16See data file titled Ozone Design Values and 

Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx in the 

docket for this SNPRM. 

17See 81 FR 74504, 74513–14. 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FROM EACH STATE TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE-ONLY

RECEPTORS IN 2021 16—Continued 

State 

Maximum 

contribution 

(ppb) 

Downwind receptor 

County State AQS ID 

South Carolina .................................................................................................. 0.25 Fairfield ................. CT 90011123 

Based on the analysis of the updated 

modeling as described above, EPA 

proposes to find that it is reasonable to 

conclude that Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina, 

individually, will not contribute greater 

than one percent of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to any potential 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

in 2021. 

EPA also analyzed ozone precursor 

emissions trends in Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina to 

support the findings from the air quality 

analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, 

EPA first reviewed the information 

submitted by Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina and then 

reviewed additional information 

derived from EPA’s National Emissions 

Inventory. EPA focused on state-wide 

emissions of NOX and VOCs in Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina.17 Combined, emissions from 

mobile sources, electric generating units 

(EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline 

vapors, and chemical solvents are a 

large percentage of anthropogenic 

emissions of ozone precursors. This 

evaluation looks at both past emissions 

trends, as well as projected trends. 

As shown in Table 2, from 2011 to 

2023 annual total NOX and VOC 

emissions are projected to decline in the 

following amounts, respectively: By 56 

percent and 35 percent in Florida; by 57 

percent and 27 percent in Georgia; by 53 

percent and 18 percent in North 

Carolina; and by 47 percent and 24 

percent in South Carolina. The 

projected reductions are a result of the 

implementation of existing control 

programs that will continue to decrease 

NOX and VOC emissions in Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina, as indicated by EPA’s most 

recent 2021 and 2023 projected 

emissions used in the updated 2023 

modeling. 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NORTH

CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA

[Tons per year]18, 19

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

FL NOX .................................................... 585,605 569,789 553,974 538,158 487,946 411,085 398,245 346,680 312,677 276,138 249,391 

FL VOC ................................................... 637,315 598,992 560,669 522,345 506,276 473,769 454,694 442,470 430,246 419,961 411,321 

GA NOX ................................................... 412,070 385,178 358,287 331,395 314,900 288,421 274,956 255,975 232,538 202,406 177,951 

GA VOC .................................................. 338,259 325,680 313,101 300,523 306,404 290,702 286,047 276,886 267,724 244,549 240,387 

NC NOX ................................................... 365,550 345,513 325,477 305,441 281,599 242,797 229,047 214,574 198,442 181,669 169,258 

NC VOC 20 .............................................. 328,942 321,229 313,516 305,803 294,299 272,534 265,404 262,394 259,385 269,915 267,208 

SC NOX ................................................... 205,952 194,924 183,896 172,868 160,064 157,222 148,786 139,694 128,656 114,238 107,420 

SC VOC .................................................. 183,937 178,844 173,750 168,656 164,822 160,869 158,476 153,877 149,279 143,119 140,107 

18The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019 in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory website: https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Emissions from miscellaneous sources are not included in the state totals presented in 

Table 2. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See ‘‘2005 thru 2019.2021_2023_2028 Annual State Tier1 Emissions_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this proposed action. 19 Note that the methods used for calculating emissions for certain tier 1 categories in the NEI changed over time between 2005 and 2019 and certain methods 

used for the NEI differ from the methods used for the 2016 Emissions Platform. These methodological differences may result in some year-to-year inconsistencies in 

the emissions trends and the projected emissions trends. 20EPA notes that for North Carolina, the projected VOC emissions are greater than historical emissions in recent years according to NEI data. However, EPA also 

notes that NOx emissions are the primary contributor to regional ozone formation in ozone transport, and for North Carolina, NOx emissions are projected to continue 

to decline. As a result of these NOx emissions reductions, North Carolina is projected to contribute below the one percent threshold in 2021 to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and is projected to continue to contribute below one percent in 2023 and 2028, despite the greater projected VOC emissions. Projected ozone design values and contributions data for 2021, 2023, and 2028 can be found in the file ‘‘Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx’’ in the docket for this action. 

As presented below in Table 3, 

onroad and nonroad mobile source 

emissions collectively (i.e., mobile 

source emissions) comprise a large 

portion of these states’ total 

anthropogenic NOX and VOC (i.e., 67 

percent of the state total NOX and 36 

percent to state total VOC for Florida; 61 

percent of the state total NOX and 30 

percent to state total VOC for Georgia; 

57 percent of the state total NOX and 31 

percent to state total VOC for North 

Carolina; and 57 percent of the state 

total NOX and 31 percent to state total 

VOC for South Carolina). 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA

[Tons per year] 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

FL NOX .................................................... 468,496 451,186 433,876 416,565 373,961 304,708 299,476 271,122 242,768 184,676 165,897 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37947 

22EPA’s normal practice is to only include 

changes in emissions from final regulatory actions 

in its modeling because, until such rules are 

finalized, any potential changes in NOX or VOC 

emissions are speculative. 

23As mentioned in Section I above, EPA is 

deferring action on Alabama’s and Tennessee’s 

Good Neighbor infrastructure SIP submittals at this 

time. 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES IN FLORIDA, 

GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA—Continued 

[Tons per year] 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

FL VOC ................................................... 351,631 325,059 298,486 271,914 255,262 222,173 202,502 190,278 178,054 155,760 145,133 

GA NOX ................................................... 297,838 276,697 255,555 234,413 225,072 205,747 199,437 180,291 161,144 122,097 108,363 

GA VOC .................................................. 171,049 157,722 144,394 131,067 134,296 115,940 108,633 99,471 90,309 72,285 67,187 

NC NOX ................................................... 272,542 253,619 234,697 215,775 197,948 165,162 157,428 145,004 132,580 107,114 95,139 

NC VOC .................................................. 176,370 162,257 148,144 134,032 124,615 104,938 99,959 96,950 93,940 88,486 81,551 

SC NOX ................................................... 144,953 137,401 129,850 122,298 111,751 111,167 104,989 95,687 86,385 68,365 61,243 

SC VOC .................................................. 86,955 82,634 78,312 73,991 70,288 66,464 64,202 59,603 55,005 46,372 42,789 

21 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel (69 FR 

38957, June 29, 2004); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder 

(73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008); Control of Emissions From 

New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22895, April 30, 2010); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342, June 18, 2012). 

The large decrease in NOX emissions 

between 2016 emissions and projected 

2023 emissions in Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina are 

primarily driven by reductions in 

emissions from onroad and nonroad 

mobile sources. As shown by the mobile 

source emissions trends in Table 3, EPA 

projects that both VOC and NOX

emissions will continue declining out to 

2023 as newer vehicles and engines that 

are subject to the most recent, stringent 

mobile source standards replace older 

vehicles and engines.21

In summary, based on the projected 

downward trend in projected future 

emissions trends, in combination with 

the historical decline in actual 

emissions, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the overall emissions trend 

demonstrated in Table 2 would 

suddenly reverse or spike in 2021 

compared to historical emissions levels 

or those projected for 2023. Further, 

there is no evidence that the projected 

ozone precursor emissions trends 

beyond 2021would not continue to 

show a decline in emissions.22

This downward trend in emissions in 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina adds support to the air 

quality analysis presented above and 

indicates that the contributions from 

emissions from sources in Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina to ozone receptors in 

downwind states will continue to 

decline and remain below one percent 

of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, 

based on this supplemental analysis, 

EPA continues to propose to conclude 

that the air quality and emissions 

analyses indicate that emissions from 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in any other state. 

III. Supplemental Proposed Actions 

In its December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA 

originally proposed to find that 

emissions from sources in Florida, 

Georgia, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in any other state based 

on information for the analytic year 

2023, consistent with the 2024 Moderate 

area attainment date. Thus, EPA 

proposed to approve the interstate 

transport portions of the infrastructure 

SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina as 

meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.23 See 84 FR 71854. 

The analysis presented in this notice 

provides a new primary basis for 

approval to supplement EPA’s proposed 

finding in the December 30, 2019, 

NPRM. EPA continues to propose to 

find that emissions from sources in 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, 

EPA continues to propose to approve 

the interstate transport portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina as meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. These actions merely propose 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37948 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

For South Carolina, because this 

proposed action merely proposes to 

approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law, this action for the 

state of South Carolina does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). Therefore, this 

proposed action will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. The 

Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is 

located within the boundary of York 

County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement 

Act), ‘‘all state and local environmental 

laws and regulations apply to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and 

authorities.’’ The Catawba Indian Nation 

also retains authority to impose 

regulations applying higher 

environmental standards to the 

Reservation than those imposed by state 

law or local governing bodies, in 

accordance with the Settlement Act. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq 

Dated: July 12, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15097 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 141 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0594; FRL–7251–01– 

OW] 

Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate 

List 5—Draft 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a 

draft list of contaminants that are 

currently not subject to any proposed or 

promulgated national primary drinking 

water regulations for public review and 

comment. These contaminants are 

known or anticipated to occur in public 

water systems and may require 

regulation under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA). This draft list is the 

Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 

5) published by the agency since the 

SDWA amendments of 1996. The Draft 

CCL 5 includes 66 chemicals, 3 

chemical groups (per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), 

cyanotoxins, and disinfection 

byproducts) and 12 microbial 

contaminants. EPA seeks comment on 

the Draft CCL 5 and on improvements 

implemented in the CCL 5 process for 

consideration in developing future 

CCLs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OW–2018–0594, by any of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method). Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water 

Docket, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460. 

Hand Delivery/Courier (by scheduled 

appointment only): EPA Docket Center, 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20004. The Docket Center’s hours of 

operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday (except federal 

holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2018–0594 for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Out of an abundance of 

caution for members of the public and 

our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 

Reading Room are closed to the public, 

with limited exceptions, to reduce the 

risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 

Docket Center staff will continue to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. We 

encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov, as there may be 

delay in processing mail. Hand 

deliveries and couriers may be received 

by scheduled appointment only. For 

further information of EPA Docket 

Center Services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on chemical contaminants 

contact Kesha Forrest, Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water, Standards 

and Risk Management Division, at (202) 

564–3632 or email forrest.kesha@

epa.gov. For information on microbial 

contaminants contact Nicole Tucker, 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water, Standards and Risk Management 

Division, at (202) 564–1946 or email 

tucker.nicole@epa.gov. 

For more information visit https://

www.epa.gov/ccl. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action impose any 

requirements on public water systems? 

B. Public Participation 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory 

Requirements of This Action 

A. What is the purpose of this action? 

B. Background and Statutory Requirements 

for CCL, Regulatory Determinations and 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule 

1. Contaminant Candidate List 

2. Regulatory Determinations 

3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule 

C. Interrelationship of the CCL, Regulatory 

Determinations, and Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring 

D. Summary of Previous CCLs and 

Regulatory Determinations 

1. The First Contaminant Candidate List 

2. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 

1 Contaminants 

3. The Second Contaminant Candidate List 

4. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 

2 Contaminants 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1