Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48357 

anchorage is 750 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

* * * * * 

(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2 

miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 45.4 to mile 47.6 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

700 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 400 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

* * * * * 

(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4 

miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

800 feet. 

* * * * * 

(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area, 

1.1 miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 200 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 700 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area, 

1.34 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area, 

2.15 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 73.05 to mile 75.2 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 375 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 875 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage. 

An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the 

right descending bank of the river 

extending from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8 

Above Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 500 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 300 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn 

Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the 

lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are 

urged to use caution in this anchorage. 

(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area, 

2.4 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 82.6 to mile 85.0 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 300 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 800 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

* * * * * 

(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area, 

2.2 miles in length, along the right 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 40.0 to mile 42.2 Above Head 

of Passes. The width of the anchorage is 

500 feet. The inner boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 325 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. The outer boundary of the 

anchorage is a line parallel to the 

nearest bank 825 feet from the water’s 

edge into the river as measured from the 

LWRP. 

* * * * * 

(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6 

miles in length, along the left 

descending bank of the river extending 

from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above 

Head of Passes. The width of the 

anchorage is 400 feet. The inner 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. The outer 

boundary of the anchorage is a line 

parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet 

from the water’s edge into the river as 

measured from the LWRP. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 19, 2021. 

Richard V. Timme, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Coast Guard District Eight. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18467 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0353; FRL–8916–01– 

R1] 

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015 

Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. The State of Connecticut 

made a submission to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements for the 

2015 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

proposing to approve the submission as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain 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 September 29, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2021–0353 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48358 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). 

Although the level of the standard is specified in 

the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also 

described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 

0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb. 

2SIP revisions that are intended to meet the 

applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure 

SIPs and the applicable elements under section 

110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure 

requirements. 

3See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909– 

911 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

4See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

5 In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed 

to require upwind states to eliminate their 

significant contribution by the next applicable 

attainment date by which downwind states must 

come into compliance with the NAAQS, as 

established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin v. 

EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

6The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 

(April 30, 2021), was signed by the EPA 

Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded 

to the remand of the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504 

(October 26, 2016), and the vacatur of a separate 

rule, the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (December 

21, 2018), by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 

938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 

F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

7 In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other 

regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport 

include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 

1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 8See Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone 

Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 

82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017). 9 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017). 

10See Information on the Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the 

docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-airpollution-transport-memos-and-notices. 

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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov or at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA 

02109—3912, telephone number: (617) 

918–1684, email address: 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Connecticut Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s 

Submittal 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated 

a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015 

ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of 

both the primary and secondary 

standards to 0.070 parts per million 

(ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires states to submit, within 3 years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIP submissions meeting the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable 

requirements is found in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as 

the good neighbor provision, which 

generally requires SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit in-state 

emissions activities from having certain 

adverse air quality effects on other states 

due to interstate transport of pollution. 

There are two so-called ‘‘prongs’’ within 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for 

a new or revised NAAQS must contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants in amounts that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1), or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). EPA and states must give 

independent significance to prong 1 and 

prong 2 when evaluating downwind air 

quality problems under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).3

We note that EPA has addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

respect to prior ozone NAAQS in 

several regional regulatory actions, 

including the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR), which addressed 

interstate transport with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 

and 2006 fine particulate matter 

standards,4 the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most 

recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6

Through the development and 

implementation of CSAPR and other 

regional rulemakings pursuant to the 

good neighbor provision,7 EPA, working 

in partnership with states, developed 

the following four-step interstate 

transport framework to address the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) 

Identify downwind air quality 

problems; (2) identify upwind states 

that impact those downwind air quality 

problems sufficiently such that they are 

considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore 

warrant further review and analysis; (3) 

identify the emissions reductions 

necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to prevent linked 

upwind states identified in step 2 from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS at the 

locations of the downwind air quality 

problems; and (4) adopt permanent and 

enforceable measures needed to achieve 

those emissions reductions. 

EPA has released several documents 

containing information relevant to 

evaluating interstate transport with 

respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, 

on January 6, 2017, EPA published a 

notice of data availability (NODA) with 

preliminary interstate ozone transport 

modeling with projected ozone design 

values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011 base 

year platform, on which we requested 

public comment.8 In the NODA, EPA 

used the year 2023 as the analytic year 

for this preliminary modeling because 

that year aligns with the expected 

attainment year for Moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.9 On October 27, 2017, we 

released a memorandum (2017 memo) 

containing updated modeling data for 

2023, which incorporated changes made 

in response to comments on the NODA, 

and noted that the modeling may be 

useful for states developing SIPs to 

address good neighbor obligations for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS.10 On March 27, 

2018, we issued a memorandum (March 

2018 memo) noting that the same 2023 

modeling data released in the 2017 

memo could also be useful for 

identifying potential downwind air 

quality problems with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48359 

11See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for 

Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan 

Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August 

2018 memo’’), and Considerations for Identifying 

Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

October 19, 2018, available in the docket for this 

action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memoand-supplemental-information-regarding-interstatetransport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. 

12See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this 

modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the 

docket for this action. The underlying modeling 

files are available for public review in the docket 

for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2020–0272). 

13See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30, 

2021). 

14See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule Update,’’ 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), 

available in the docket for this action. 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 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 ozone NAAQS 

and used in support of this proposal. 

15We note 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 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 

flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good 

neighbor provision. Such circumstances are not at 

issue in the present proposal. 

16CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 

Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 83 

FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018). 

four-step interstate transport framework. 

The March 2018 memo also included 

the then newly available contribution 

modeling results to assist states in 

evaluating their impact on potential 

downwind air quality problems for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the 

interstate transport framework. EPA 

subsequently issued two more 

memoranda in August and October 

2018, providing additional information 

to states developing good neighbor SIP 

submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

concerning, respectively, potential 

contribution thresholds that may be 

appropriate to apply in step 2 of the 

framework, and considerations for 

identifying downwind areas that may 

have problems maintaining the standard 

at step 1 of the framework.11

On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised 

CSAPR Update, EPA released and 

accepted public comment on updated 

2023 modeling that used a 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.12 On March 

15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised 

CSAPR Update using the same modeling 

released at proposal.13 Although 

Connecticut relied on the modeling 

included in the March 2018 memo to 

develop its SIP submission as EPA had 

suggested, EPA now proposes to 

primarily rely on the updated and 

newly available 2016 base year 

modeling in evaluating these 

submissions. By using the updated 

modeling results, EPA is using the most 

current and technically appropriate 

information as the primary basis for this 

proposed rulemaking. EPA’s 

independent analysis, which also 

evaluated historical monitoring data, 

recent DVs, and emissions trends, found 

that such information provides 

additional support and further 

substantiates the results of the 2016 base 

year modeling as the basis for this 

proposed rulemaking. Section III of this 

document and the Air Quality Modeling 

technical support document (TSD) 

included in the docket for this proposal 

contain additional detail on this 

modeling.14

In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and 

the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used a 

threshold of one percent of the NAAQS 

to determine whether a given upwind 

state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 2 of the 

interstate transport framework and 

would, therefore, contribute to 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance sites identified in step 1. If 

a state’s impact did not equal or exceed 

the one percent threshold, the upwind 

state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind 

air quality problem, and EPA, therefore, 

concluded the state would not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

downwind states. However, if a state’s 

impact equaled or exceeded the one 

percent threshold, the state’s emissions 

were further evaluated in step 3, 

considering both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions might be deemed 

‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must be 

eliminated under the good neighbor 

provision. EPA is proposing to rely on 

the one percent threshold (which is 0.70 

ppb) for the purpose of evaluating 

Connecticut’s contribution to 

nonattainment or maintenance of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas. 

Several D.C. Circuit court decisions 

address the issue of the relevant analytic 

year for the purposes of evaluating 

ozone transport air-quality problems. 

On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, 

remanding the CSAPR Update to the 

extent that it failed to require upwind 

states to eliminate their significant 

contribution by the next applicable 

attainment date by which downwind 

states must come into compliance with 

the NAAQS, as established under CAA 

section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313. 

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

issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA 

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). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 

1203–04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court 

noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates 

the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and, 

therefore, ‘‘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, the 

agency 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 assess downwind air 

quality by the next applicable 

attainment date, including a Marginal 

area attainment date under CAA section 

181 for ozone nonattainment.15 The 

Marginal area attainment date for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.16

Historically, EPA has considered the 

full ozone season prior to the attainment 

date as supplying an appropriate 

analytic year for assessing good 

neighbor obligations. 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 analytical year that is wholly in the 

past, because the agency interprets the 

good neighbor provision as forward 

looking. See 86 FR 23054 at 23074; see 

also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. 

Consequently, in this proposal EPA will 

use the analytical year of 2021 to 

evaluate Connecticut’s good neighbor 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48360 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

17EPA recognizes that by the time final action is 

taken with respect to this SIP submission, the 2021 

ozone season will be wholly in the past. As 

discussed below, the available modeling 

information indicates that our analysis would not 

change even using 2023 as the analytic year. The 

2023 modeling results are included in the ‘‘Ozone 

Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR 

Update.xlsx’’, included in the docket for this action. 

18EPA notes that the monitoring site ID for 

Suffolk County, New York is 361030002. 

19EPA notes that the $1,400 ton per year 

threshold stated by Connecticut is in reference to 

the cost per ton threshold used in the CSAPR 

Update, which was used to evaluate available costeffective EGU controls under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. See 81 FR 74504 (October 

26, 2016). 

20We recognize that Connecticut and other states 

may have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance 

memos (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 resubmit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in 

compliance with CAA procedures for SIP 

submissions). While Connecticut has not done this, 

as explained in this section, the independent 

analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion 

confirms that the state’s submission in this instance 

is ultimately approvable. 

21See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910– 

11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA must give 

‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of CAA 

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

22See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 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 913–14 (affirming as 

reasonable EPA’s approach to defining 

nonattainment in CAIR). 

23See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR 

Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this 

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

86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). 

obligation with respect to the 2015 

ozone NAAQS.17

II. Connecticut Submittal 

On December 6, 2018, Connecticut 

submitted a SIP revision addressing the 

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

transport requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Connecticut relied on 

the results of EPA’s modeling for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS contained in the 

March 2018 memo to identify 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors that may be 

impacted by emissions from sources in 

Connecticut in the year 2023. These 

results indicate Connecticut’s greatest 

impact on any potential downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

would be 0.83 ppb in Suffolk County, 

New York.18 Based on the March 2018 

memo, this was the only nonattainment 

or maintenance receptor for which 

Connecticut was projected in 2023 to 

contribute above the screening 

threshold of 0.70 ppb (one percent of 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS). 

Connecticut noted in its December 

2018 good neighbor submittal that ‘‘EPA 

had considered cost-effective only 

reductions that are available at a cost of 

less than $1,400 per ton of emissions 

reduced. Connecticut’s emitters are 

currently required to adopt control 

measures at costs exceeding $13,000 per 

ton (of NOX).’’ 19 Connecticut states that 

as it requires this high level of control 

of ozone precursor emissions, it has 

exhausted lower-cost emission 

reduction measures. 

As evidence of this, Connecticut 

points to Regulations of Connecticut 

Agencies section 22a–174–22e(g) and its 

ozone attainment plan technical support 

document for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

which was submitted to EPA in August 

2017 and documents the State’s ozone 

precursor emission reduction measures. 

Connecticut concludes that it has met 

its good neighbor obligations for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS because of the 

existing control measures that are in 

place. 

III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s 

Submittal 

Connecticut’s SIP submission relies 

on analysis of the year 2023 to show 

whether it contributes to nonattainment 

or interferes with maintenance of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.20

As explained in Section I of this 

proposal, EPA has conducted an 

updated analysis for the 2021 analytical 

year that is being used to evaluate 

Connecticut’s transport SIP submittal. 

Significantly, this new analysis shows 

that, in 2021, Connecticut is not 

projected to contribute to any potential 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor, including the 

monitor in Suffolk County, New York, 

above the screening threshold of 0.70 

ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS). While EPA has focused its 

analysis in this document on the year 

2021, modeling data in the record for 

years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no 

new linkages to downwind receptors are 

projected for Connecticut in later years. 

This is not surprising as it is consistent 

with an overall, long-term downward 

trend in emissions from this state. 

As explained in Section I of this 

document, in consideration of the 

holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, 

EPA’s analysis relies on 2021 as the 

relevant attainment year for evaluating 

Connecticut’s good neighbor obligations 

with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

using the four-step interstate transport 

framework. In step 1, we identify 

locations where the Agency expects 

there to be nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic 

year. Where EPA’s analysis shows that 

an area or site does not fall under the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor, that site is 

excluded from further analysis under 

EPA’s four step interstate transport 

framework. For areas that are identified 

as a nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next 

step of our four-step framework by 

identifying the upwind state’s 

contribution to those receptors. 

EPA’s approach to identifying ozone 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in this action is consistent 

with the 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.21

For the purpose of this 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 

analytic year.22

In addition, in this proposal, EPA 

identifies a receptor to be a 

‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes of 

defining interference with maintenance, 

consistent with the method used in the 

CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit 

in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 

2015).23 Specifically, monitoring sites 

with a projected maximum design value 

in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are 

considered maintenance receptors. 

EPA’s method of defining these 

receptors takes into account both 

measured data and reasonable 

projections based on modeling analysis. 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48361 

24See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results 

of this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in 

the docket for this action. The underlying modeling 

files are available for public access in the docket for 

the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020– 

0272). 

25The data are given in the ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Technical Support Document for the 

Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update’’ and 

‘‘Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised 

CSAPR Update.xlsx,’’ which are included in the 

docket for this action. 

26This is because ground-level ozone is not 

emitted directly into the air but is formed by 

chemical reactions between ozone precursors, 

chiefly NOX and VOCs, in the presence of sunlight. 

See 86 FR 23054, 23063. 

27Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 

Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile 

Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR 8428, 

February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 

Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Clean 

Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 

2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, 

May 6, 2008); Marine Spark-Ignition and Small 

Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR 59034, October 

8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines 

at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR 

22895, April 30, 2010); and Aircraft and Aircraft 

Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342, June 18, 

2012). 

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. 

To evaluate future air quality in steps 

1 and 2 of the interstate transport 

framework, EPA is using the 2016 and 

2023 base case emissions developed 

under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative 

emissions modeling platform project as 

the primary source for base year and 

2023 future year emissions data for this 

proposal.24 Because this platform does 

not include emissions for 2021, EPA 

developed an interpolation technique 

based on modeling for 2023 and 

measured ozone data to determine 

ozone concentrations for 2021. To 

estimate average and maximum design 

values for 2021, EPA first performed air 

quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to 

obtain design values in 2023. The 2023 

design values were then coupled with 

the corresponding 2016 measured 

design values to estimate design values 

in 2021. Details on the modeling, 

including the interpolation 

methodology, can be found in the Air 

Quality Modeling TSD, found in the 

docket for this proposal. 

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 

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 Connecticut contributes at 

or above the threshold of one percent of 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to 

any downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor. The data 25

indicate that the highest contribution in 

2021 from Connecticut to a downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

is 0.44 ppb to a nonattainment receptor 

in Richmond County, New York 

(monitoring site 360850067). The data 

also show modeled ozone contributions 

from Connecticut to the design values of 

a larger set of monitoring sites 

(independent of attainment status) and 

indicate that the highest projected 

contribution in 2021 from Connecticut 

to any of these sites is 3.51 ppb to Kent 

County in Rhode Island (monitoring site 

440030002; #378 on the Design Values 

and Contributions spreadsheet). While 

Connecticut’s modeled contribution to 

the Kent County monitor exceeds one 

percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

EPA’s analysis at step 1 does not 

identify the Kent County monitor as a 

downwind area that may have problems 

maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

The Kent County monitor’s projected 

average design value in 2021 is 65.5 

ppb. The updated modeling for 2021 

also shows that Connecticut is no longer 

projected to be linked to the Suffolk 

County monitoring site, since this 

monitor is no longer projected to be a 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor. 

EPA also analyzed ozone precursor 

emissions trends in Connecticut to 

support the findings from the air quality 

analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, 

we first reviewed the information 

submitted by the state and then 

reviewed additional information 

available to the Agency. We focused on 

state-wide emissions of NOX and 

VOCs.26 Emissions from mobile sources, 

electric generating units (‘‘EGUs’’), 

industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and 

chemical solvents are some of the major 

anthropogenic sources of ozone 

precursors. This evaluation looks at 

both past emissions trends, as well as 

projected trends. 

As shown in Table 1, for Connecticut, 

annual total NOX and VOC emissions 

are projected to decline between 2016 

and 2023 by 31 percent and 2 percent, 

respectively. The projected reductions 

are a result of the implementation of 

existing control programs that will 

continue to decrease NOX and VOC 

emissions in Connecticut, as indicated 

by EPA’s most recent 2021 and 2023 

projected emissions. 

As shown in Table 2, on-road and 

nonroad mobile source emissions 

collectively comprise a large portion of 

Connecticut’s total anthropogenic NOX

and VOCs. For example, in 2019, NOX

emissions from mobile sources in 

Connecticut comprised 62 percent of 

total NOX emissions and 38 percent of 

total VOC emissions. 

The large decrease in NOX emissions 

between 2016 emissions and projected 

2023 emissions in Connecticut is 

primarily driven by reductions in 

emissions from on-road and nonroad 

mobile sources. EPA projects that both 

VOC and NOX emissions will continue 

declining to 2023 as newer vehicles and 

engines that are subject to the most 

recent, stringent mobile source 

standards replace older vehicles and 

engines.27

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 2021 would not continue to 

show a decline in emissions. In 

addition, EPA followed its normal 

practice of including in our modeling 

only changes in NOX or VOC emissions 

that result from final regulatory actions. 

Any potential changes in NOX or VOC 

emissions that may result from possible 

future or proposed regulatory actions 

are speculative. 

This downward trend in emissions in 

Connecticut adds support to the air 

quality analyses presented above for the 

state and indicates that the 

contributions from emissions from 

sources in Connecticut to ozone 

receptors in downwind states will 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48362 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

28The annual emissions data for the years 2011 

through 2019 were obtained from EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/ 

air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data. Note that emissions from 

miscellaneous sources are not included in the state 

totals. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based 

on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See 

‘‘2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State 

Tier 1 Emissions_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling 

TSD in the docket for this action. 

continue to decline and remain below 

one percent of the NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOCS FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN CONNECTICUT

[Tons per year] 28

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

CT NOX .......... 72,815 69,540 66,264 62,989 57,791 48,729 46,285 43,751 40,219 35,033 33,412 

CT VOCs ........ 79,806 80,621 81,435 82,250 74,313 62,658 57,777 56,137 54,498 63,354 61,110 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOCS FROM ON-ROAD AND NONROAD VEHICLES IN CONNECTICUT

[Tons per year] 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

CT NOX .......... 54,371 50,956 47,540 44,124 40,040 32,090 30,760 27,878 24,995 19,128 16,935 

CT VOCs ........ 38,749 37,166 35,583 33,999 30,837 23,957 23,851 22,212 20,573 17,398 16,229 

Thus, EPA’s air quality and emissions 

analyses indicate that emissions from 

Connecticut will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state in 2021. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, 

Connecticut concluded that it has met 

its good neighbor obligations for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS based on existing 

control measures that are in place. EPA 

conducted an independent analysis for 

the analytic year 2021 based on more 

recent data and updated modeling. 

EPA’s evaluation of measured and 

monitored data, including interpolating 

values to generate a reasonable 

expectation of air quality and 

contribution values in 2021, is 

discussed in Section III. Based on the 

updated modeling and analysis, EPA 

concluded that emissions from sources 

in the state will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2015 

ozone NAAQS in any other state. This 

conclusion remains true for later 

modeled years 2023 and 2028 in the 

updated modeling EPA is relying on. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

Connecticut submission as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to this 

proposed rule by following the 

instructions listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register 

document. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

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); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is 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.); 

• Does 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); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does 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). 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules 48363 

1Some NESHAP standards do not require a 

source to obtain a Title V permit (e.g., certain area 

sources that are exempt from the requirement to 

obtain a Title V permit). For these non-Title V 

sources, the EPA believes that the State must assure 

the EPA that it can implement and enforce the 

NESHAP for such sources. See 65 FR 55810, 55813 

(September 14, 2000). The EPA previously 

approved Oklahoma’s program to implement and 

enforce the NESHAP as they apply to non-part 70 

sources. See 66 FR 1584 (January 9, 2001). 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 24, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18516 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 61 and 63 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0086; FRL–8847–01– 

R6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation 

of Authority to Oklahoma 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has 

submitted updated regulations for 

receiving delegation and approval of its 

program for the implementation and 

enforcement of certain National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP), as provided for 

under previously approved delegation 

mechanisms. The updated state 

regulations incorporate by reference 

certain NESHAP promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

as they existed through June 30, 2019. 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

ODEQ’s requested delegation update. 

The proposed delegation of authority 

under this action applies to sources 

located in certain areas of Indian 

country as discussed herein. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received on or 

before September 29, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2020–0086, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, please 

contact Rick Barrett, 214–665–7227, 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. For the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may not be 

publicly available due to docket file size 

restrictions or content (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Barrett, EPA Region 6 Office, ARPE, 

(214) 665–7227, barrett.richard@

epa.gov. Out of an abundance of caution 

for members of the public and our staff, 

the EPA Region 6 office will be closed 

to the public to reduce the risk of 

transmitting COVID–19. We encourage 

the public to submit comments via 

https://www.regulations.gov, as there 

will be a delay in processing mail and 

no courier or hand deliveries will be 

accepted. Please call or email the 

contact listed above if you need 

alternative access to material indexed 

but not provided in the docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What does this action do? 

II. What is the authority for delegation? 

III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s program 

meet to be approved? 

IV. How did ODEQ meet the NESHAP 

program approval criteria? 

V. What is being delegated? 

VI. What is not being delegated? 

VII. How will statutory and regulatory 

interpretations be made? 

VIII. What Authority Does the EPA Have? 

IX. What Information must ODEQ provide to 

the EPA? 

X. What is the EPA’s oversight role? 

XI. Should sources submit notices to the EPA 

or ODEQ? 

XII. How will unchanged authorities be 

delegated to ODEQ in the future? 

XIII. Impact on Areas of Indian Country 

XIV. Proposed Action 

XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What does this action do? 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

delegation of the implementation and 

enforcement of certain NESHAPs to 

ODEQ. If finalized, the delegation will 

provide ODEQ with the primary 

responsibility to implement and enforce 

the delegated standards. 

II. What is the authority for delegation? 

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, 

authorize the EPA to delegate authority 

to any State or local agency which 

submits adequate regulatory procedures 

for implementation and enforcement of 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant 

standards are codified at 40 CFR parts 

61 and 63. 

III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s 

program meet to be approved? 

Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to disapprove any program 

submitted by a State for the delegation 

of NESHAP standards if the EPA 

determines that: 

(A) The authorities contained in the 

program are not adequate to assure 

compliance by the sources within the 

State with respect to each applicable 

standard, regulation, or requirement 

established under section 112; 

(B) adequate authority does not exist, 

or adequate resources are not available, 

to implement the program; 

(C) the schedule for implementing the 

program and assuring compliance by 

affected sources is not sufficiently 

expeditious; or 

(D) the program is otherwise not in 

compliance with the guidance issued by 

the EPA under section 112(l)(2) or is not 

likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 

objectives of the CAA. 

In carrying out its responsibilities 

under section 112(l), the EPA 

promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part 

63, subpart E setting forth criteria for the 

approval of submitted programs. For 

example, in order to obtain approval of 

a program to implement and enforce 

Federal section 112 rules as 

promulgated without changes (straight 

delegation) for part 70 sources, a state 

must demonstrate that it meets the 

criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR 

63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final 

Title V program approval will satisfy the 

criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d).1 The 

NESHAP delegation for Oklahoma, as it 

applies to both part 70 and non-part 70 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS