37776 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

prosecutorial efforts by permitting the 

record subject and other persons to 

whom he might disclose the records or 

the accounting of records to avoid 

criminal penalties, civil remedies, or 

disciplinary measures; interfere with a 

civil or administrative action or 

investigation by allowing the subject to 

tamper with witnesses or evidence, and 

to avoid detection or apprehension, 

which may undermine the entire 

investigatory process; reveal 

confidential sources who might not 

have otherwise come forward to assist 

in an investigation and thereby hinder 

DoD’s ability to obtain information from 

future confidential sources; and result 

in an unwarranted invasion of the 

privacy of others. Amendment of such 

records could also impose a highly 

impracticable administrative burden by 

requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. 

(3) Exemption (k)(5). Records in this 

system of records may contain 

information concerning investigatory 

material compiled solely for 

determining suitability, eligibility, and 

qualifications for Federal civilian 

employment, military service, Federal 

contracts, or access to classified 

information. In some cases, such records 

may contain information pertaining to 

the identity of a source who furnished 

information to the Government under an 

express promise that the source’s 

identity would be held in confidence (or 

prior to the effective date of the Privacy 

Act, under an implied promise). 

Application of exemption (k)(5) may be 

necessary because access to, amendment 

of, or release of the accounting of 

disclosures of such records could 

identify these confidential sources who 

might not have otherwise come forward 

to assist the Government; hinder the 

Government’s ability to obtain 

information from future confidential 

sources; and result in an unwarranted 

invasion of the privacy of others. 

Amendment of such records could also 

impose a highly impracticable 

administrative burden by requiring 

investigations to be continuously 

reinvestigated. 

(B) Subsections (d)(3) and (4). These 

subsections are inapplicable to the 

extent an exemption is claimed from 

subsections (d)(1) and (2). 

(C) Subsection (e)(1). In the collection 

of information for investigatory or law 

enforcement purposes, it is not always 

possible to conclusively determine the 

relevance and necessity of particular 

information in the early stages of the 

investigation or adjudication. In some 

instances, it will be only after the 

collected information is evaluated in 

light of other information that its 

relevance and necessity for effective 

investigation and adjudication can be 

assessed. Collection of such information 

permits more informed decision-making 

by the Department when making 

required suitability, eligibility, fitness, 

and credentialing determinations. 

Accordingly, application of exemptions 

(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5) may be 

necessary. 

(D) Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H). 

These subsections are inapplicable to 

the extent exemption is claimed from 

subsections (d)(1) and (2). Because 

portions of this system are exempt from 

the individual access and amendment 

provisions of subsection (d) for the 

reasons noted above, DoD is not 

required to establish requirements, 

rules, or procedures with respect to 

such access or amendment provisions. 

Providing notice to individuals with 

respect to the existence of records 

pertaining to them in the system of 

records or otherwise setting up 

procedures pursuant to which 

individuals may access, view, and seek 

to amend records pertaining to 

themselves in the system would 

potentially reveal classified information, 

undermine investigative efforts, reveal 

the identities of witnesses, potential 

witnesses, and confidential informants, 

and impose an undue administrative 

burden by requiring investigations to be 

continually reinvestigated. Accordingly, 

application of exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2) 

and (k)(5) may be necessary. 

(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent 

that this provision is construed to 

require more detailed disclosure than 

the broad, general information currently 

published in the system notice 

concerning the categories of sources of 

the records in the system, an exemption 

from this provision is necessary to 

protect classified information, other 

national security information, and the 

confidentiality of national security, law 

enforcement, and investigatory sources 

of information, and to protect the 

privacy and physical safety of witnesses 

and informants. Accordingly, 

application of exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2) 

and (k)(5) may be necessary. 

(F) Subsection (f). The agency’s rules 

are inapplicable to those portions of the 

system that are exempt. Accordingly, 

application of exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2) 

and (k)(5) may be necessary. 

(iv) Exempt records from other 

systems. In the course of carrying out 

the overall purpose for this system, 

exempt records from other systems of 

records may in turn become part of the 

records maintained in this system. To 

the extent that copies of exempt records 

from those other systems of records are 

maintained in this system, the DoD 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those other systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the prior system(s) of which they are 

a part, provided the reason for the 

exemption remains valid and necessary. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 21, 2022. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13572 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0291; EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663; FRL–9651–01–R9] 

Approval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 2015 

Ozone 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 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of air quality in other 

states. The State of Arizona submitted a 

SIP revision to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to address 

these requirements for the 2015 ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to 

approve Arizona’s SIP submission as 

meeting the requirement that the 

Arizona 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: Any comments must arrive by 

July 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2022–0291 at https://

www.regulations.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. 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37777 

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 Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). 5Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 

2016). 6 In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

remanded 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). Wisconsin v. 

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

Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

at 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021) responded to the 

remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin and the 

vacatur of a separate rule, the ‘‘CSAPR Close-Out’’ 

at 83 FR 65878 (December 21, 2018), in New York 

v. EPA, 781 F. App. 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). 

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). 

There are two dockets supporting this 

action, EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0291 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0291 contains 

information specific to Arizona, 

including this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0663 contains additional 

modeling files, emissions inventory 

files, technical support documents, and 

other relevant supporting 

documentation regarding interstate 

transport of emissions for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS that are being used to 

support this action. All comments 

regarding information in either of these 

dockets are to be made in Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0291. 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. If you need 

assistance in a language other than 

English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA 

Region IX, (415) 947–4279, Leers.Ben@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Background 

B. The EPA’s 4-Step Interstate Transport 

Regulatory Framework 

C. The EPA’s Ozone Transport Modeling 

Information 

D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating 

Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS 

II. Arizona’s Submission 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Background 

On October 1, 2015, the 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 The requirements in 

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

known as the ‘‘interstate transport’’ or 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, generally 

require 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), which require 

that the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS 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). The 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

B. The EPA’s 4-Step Interstate Transport 

Regulatory Framework 

The EPA is using the 4-step interstate 

transport framework (or ‘‘4-step 

framework’’) to evaluate the states’ SIP 

submittals addressing the interstate 

transport provision for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. The 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 and the CSAPR Update 5 and 

the Revised CSAPR Update, both of 

which addressed the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.6

Through the development and 

implementation of the CSAPR 

rulemakings and other prior regional 

rulemakings pursuant to the interstate 

transport provision,7 the EPA, working 

in partnership with states, developed 

the following 4-step framework to 

evaluate a state’s obligations to 

eliminate interstate transport emissions 

under the interstate transport provision 

for the ozone NAAQS: (1) identify 

monitoring sites that are projected to 

have problems attaining and/or 

maintaining the NAAQS (i.e., 

nonattainment and/or maintenance 

receptors); (2) identify states that impact 

those air quality problems in other (i.e., 

downwind) states sufficiently such that 

the states are considered ‘‘linked’’ and 

therefore warrant further review and 

analysis; (3) identify the emissions 

reductions necessary (if any), applying a 

multifactor analysis, to eliminate each 

linked upwind state’s significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance of the 

NAAQS at the locations identified in 

Step 1; and (4) adopt permanent and 

enforceable measures needed to achieve 

those emissions reductions. 

C. The EPA’s Ozone Transport Modeling 

Information 

In general, the EPA has performed 

nationwide air quality modeling to 

project ozone design values that are 

used in combination with measured 

data to identify nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. To quantify the 

contribution of emissions from specific 

upwind states to 2023 ozone design 

values at the identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37778 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8See Notice of Availability of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone 

Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 

82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017). 

9 Id. at 1735. 

10EPA, 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). The October 

2017 memorandum is available at https://

www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/node/ 

194139/. 

11EPA, 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). The March 2018 

memorandum is available at https://

www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs. 

12The March 2018 memorandum, however, 

provided, ‘‘While the information in this 

memorandum and the associated air quality 

analysis data could be used to inform the 

development of these SIPs, the information is not 

a final determination regarding states’ obligations 

under the good neighbor provision. Any such 

determination would be made through notice-andcomment rulemaking.’’ 

13EPA, 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), 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). The August 2018 and October 

2018 memoranda are available at https://

www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs. 

14The results of this modeling, as well as the 

underlying modeling files, are available at https:// 

www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663. 

15 85 FR 68964, 68981 (October 30, 2020). 

16EPA, Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document for the Final Revised Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update (March 2021). This technical 

support document is available at https://

www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0663. 

17Additional details and documentation related 

to the MOVES3 model can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicleemission-simulator-moves. 

18EPA, Technical Support Document (TSD) 

Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 

North American Emissions Modeling Platform 

(February 2022). This technical support document 

is available at https://www.regulations.gov under 

docket ID no. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. 

19Ramboll Environment and Health, January 

2021, www.camx.com. 

receptors, the EPA performed 

nationwide, state-level ozone source 

apportionment modeling for 2023. The 

source apportionment modeling 

estimated contributions to ozone 

concentrations at receptors from 

precursor emissions of anthropogenic 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds in individual 

upwind states. 

The EPA has released several 

documents containing projected ozone 

design values, contributions, and 

information relevant to evaluating 

interstate transport with respect to the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 

2017, the EPA published a notice of data 

availability (NODA) in which we 

requested comment on preliminary 

interstate ozone transport data including 

projected ozone design values and 

interstate contributions for 2023 using a 

2011 base year platform.8 In the NODA, 

the EPA used the year 2023 as the 

analytic year for this preliminary 

modeling because 2023 aligns with the 

expected attainment year for 

‘‘Moderate’’ ozone nonattainment areas 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.9 On 

October 27, 2017, the EPA released a 

memorandum (‘‘October 2017 

memorandum’’) containing updated 

modeling data for 2023. The October 

2017 memorandum incorporated 

changes made in response to comments 

on the NODA and noted that the 

modeling may be useful for states 

developing SIPs to address interstate 

transport obligations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.10 On March 27, 2018, the EPA 

issued a memorandum (‘‘March 2018 

memorandum’’) noting that the same 

2023 modeling data released in the 

October 2017 memorandum could also 

be useful for identifying potential 

downwind air quality problems with 

respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at 

Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport 

framework.11 The March 2018 

memorandum also included the then 

newly available contribution modeling 

data to assist states in evaluating their 

impact on potential downwind air 

quality problems for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS under Step 2 of the 4-step 

interstate transport framework.12 The 

EPA subsequently issued two more 

memoranda in August and October 

2018, providing additional information 

to states developing interstate transport 

SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS concerning, respectively, 

potential contribution thresholds that 

may be appropriate to apply in Step 2 

of the 4-step interstate transport 

framework, and considerations for 

identifying downwind areas that may 

have problems maintaining the standard 

at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework.13

Since the release of the modeling data 

shared in the March 2018 

memorandum, the EPA performed 

updated modeling using a 2016-based 

emissions modeling platform (the 

‘‘2016v1’’ platform). This emissions 

platform was developed under the EPA/ 

Multi-Jurisdictional Organization 

(MJO)/state collaborative project.14 This 

collaborative project was a multi-year 

joint effort by the EPA, MJOs, and states 

to develop a new, more recent emissions 

platform for use by the EPA and states 

in regulatory modeling as an 

improvement from the dated 2011-based 

platform that the EPA had used to 

project ozone design values and 

contribution data provided in the 2017 

and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used 

the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone 

design values and contributions for 

2023. On October 30, 2020, in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking for the Revised 

CSAPR Update, the EPA released and 

accepted public comment on 2023 

modeling that used the 2016v1 

emissions platform.15 Although the 

Revised CSAPR Update addressed 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the projected design values and 

contributions from the 2016v1 platform 

are also useful for identifying 

downwind ozone problems and linkages 

with respect to the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.16

Following the final Revised CSAPR 

Update, the EPA made further updates 

to the 2016 emissions platform to 

include mobile emissions from the 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator MOVES3 model 17 and 

updated emissions projections for 

electric generating units that reflect the 

emissions reductions from the Revised 

CSAPR Update, recent information on 

plant closures, and other sector trends. 

Details about the updated emissions 

platform (the ‘‘2016v2’’ platform) are 

described in the emissions modeling 

technical support document (TSD) for 

this proposed rule.18 The EPA 

performed air quality modeling of the 

2016v2 emissions using the most recent 

public release version of the 

Comprehensive Air-quality Model with 

extensions (CAMx) photochemical 

modeling, version 7.10.19 The EPA now 

proposes to primarily rely on the 

updated modeling for the 2023 analytic 

year based on the newly available 

2016v2 emissions platform (generally 

referred to herein as the 2016v2 

modeling for 2023) in evaluating these 

submissions with respect to Steps 1 and 

2 of the 4-step interstate transport 

framework. By using the updated 

modeling results, the EPA is using the 

most current and technically 

appropriate information for this 

proposed rulemaking. Section III of this 

document and the Air Quality Modeling 

TSD for 2015 Ozone NAAQS Transport 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37779 

20 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). 

21See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). 

22March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A. 

23 Id. at A–1. 

24 Id. 

25CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

26For attainment dates for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS, refer to CAA section 181(a), 40 CFR 

51.1303, and Additional Air Quality Designations 

for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective 

August 3, 2018). 

27Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 

2019). 28 Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203–1204 

(D.C. Cir. 2020). 29 Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). 30We note that the court in Maryland did not 

have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which 

the 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 

interstate transport provision. 

31CAA 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 August 3, 2018). 

SIP Proposed Actions, included in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0663 for this proposal, contain 

additional detail on the EPA’s 2016v2 

modeling. In this document, the EPA is 

accepting public comment on this 

updated 2023 modeling, which uses a 

2016v2 emissions platform. Comments 

on the EPA’s air quality modeling 

should be submitted in the Regional 

docket for this action at docket ID no. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2022–0291. Comments 

are not being accepted to docket ID no. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. 

D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating 

Interstate Transport SIPs for the 2015 

Ozone NAAQS 

The EPA proposes to apply a 

consistent set of policy judgments 

across all states for purposes of 

evaluating interstate transport 

obligations and the approvability of 

interstate transport SIP submittals for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These policy 

judgments reflect consistency with 

relevant case law and past agency 

practice as reflected in the CSAPR and 

related rulemakings. Nationwide 

consistency in approach is particularly 

important in the context of interstate 

ozone transport, which is a regionalscale pollution problem involving many 

smaller contributors. Effective policy 

solutions to the problem of interstate 

ozone transport dating back to the NOX

SIP Call 20 have necessitated the 

application of a uniform framework of 

policy judgments in order to ensure an 

‘‘efficient and equitable’’ approach.21

In the March, August, and October 

2018 memoranda, the EPA recognized 

that states may be able to establish 

alternative approaches to addressing 

their interstate transport obligations for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS that vary from 

a nationally uniform framework. The 

EPA emphasized in these memoranda, 

however, that such alternative 

approaches must be technically justified 

and appropriate in light of the facts and 

circumstances of each particular state’s 

submittal. In general, the EPA continues 

to believe that deviation from a 

nationally consistent approach to ozone 

transport must be substantially justified 

and have a well-documented technical 

basis that is consistent with relevant 

case law. Where states submit SIPs that 

rely on any such potential flexibilities 

that have been identified or suggested in 

the past, the EPA will evaluate whether 

the state adequately justified the 

technical and legal basis for doing so. 

The EPA notes that certain concepts 

included in an attachment to the March 

2018 memorandum require unique 

consideration, and these ideas do not 

constitute agency guidance with respect 

to transport obligations for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Attachment A to the 

March 2018 memorandum identified a 

preliminary list of potential flexibilities 

that could potentially inform SIP 

development.22 However, the EPA made 

clear in that attachment that the list of 

ideas were not suggestions endorsed by 

the Agency, but rather ‘‘comments 

provided in various forums’’ on which 

the EPA sought ‘‘feedback from 

interested stakeholders.’’ 23 Further, the 

attachment stated that the ‘‘EPA is not 

at this time making any determination 

that the ideas discussed below are 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA, nor are we specifically 

recommending that states use these 

approaches.’’ 24 Attachment A to the 

March 2018 memorandum, therefore, 

does not constitute agency guidance, but 

was intended to generate further 

discussion around potential approaches 

to addressing ozone transport among 

interested stakeholders. To the extent 

that states seek to develop or rely on 

these ideas in support of their SIP 

submittals, the EPA will thoroughly 

review the technical and legal 

justifications for doing so. 

The remainder of this section 

describes the EPA’s proposed 

framework with respect to analytic year, 

definition of nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors, selection of 

contribution threshold, and multifactor 

control strategy assessment. 

1. Selection of Analytic Year 

In general, the states and the EPA 

must implement the interstate transport 

provision in a manner consistent with 

the provisions of title I of the CAA.25

This requires, among other things, that 

these obligations are addressed 

consistently with the timeframes for 

downwind areas to meet their CAA 

obligations. With respect to ozone 

NAAQS, under CAA section 181(a), this 

means obligations must be addressed 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ and no 

later than the schedule of attainment 

dates provided in CAA section 

181(a)(1).26 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).27

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

issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA 

that cited the Wisconsin decision in 

holding that the 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 the EPA’s denial of a petition 

under CAA section 126(b).28 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, the agency must evaluate 

downwind air quality at that deadline, 

not at some later date.’’ 29 The EPA 

interprets the court’s holding in 

Maryland as requiring the states and the 

EPA, under the interstate transport 

provision, to assess downwind air 

quality as expeditiously as practicable 

and no later than the next applicable 

attainment date,30 which is now the 

Moderate area attainment date under 

CAA section 181 for ozone 

nonattainment. The Moderate area 

attainment date for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS is August 3, 2024.31 The EPA 

believes that 2023 is now the 

appropriate year for analysis of 

interstate transport obligations for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS because the 2023 

ozone season is the last relevant ozone 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37780 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

32See 86 FR 23054, 23074; see also Wisconsin, 

938 F.3d at 322. 

33See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910– 

911 (holding that the EPA must give ‘‘independent 

significance’’ to each prong of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 34See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same 

concept, relying on both current monitoring data 

and modeling to define nonattainment receptor, 

was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR 25241, 25249 

(January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 

F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as reasonable the EPA’s 

approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). 35EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 

F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015). See also 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). The CSAPR Update and Revised 

CSAPR Update also used this approach. See also 81 

FR 74504 and 86 FR 23054. 

season during which emissions 

reductions achieved in linked upwind 

states could assist downwind states in 

meeting the August 3, 2024 Moderate 

area attainment date for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The EPA recognizes that the 

attainment date for nonattainment areas 

classified as Marginal for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. Under 

the Maryland holding, any emissions 

reductions necessary to satisfy interstate 

transport obligations should have been 

implemented by no later than this date. 

At the time of the statutory deadline for 

states to submit interstate transport SIPs 

(i.e., October 1, 2018), many states 

relied upon the EPA’s modeling of the 

year 2023, and no state provided an 

alternative analysis using a 2021 

analytic year (or the prior 2020 ozone 

season). However, the EPA must act on 

SIP submittals using the information 

available at the time it takes such action. 

In this circumstance, the EPA does not 

believe it would be appropriate to 

evaluate states’ obligations under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as of an 

attainment date that is wholly in the 

past, because the EPA interprets the 

interstate transport provision as forward 

looking.32 Consequently, in this 

proposal, the EPA will use the 

analytical year of 2023 to evaluate 

Arizona’s CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

SIP submission with respect to the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

In Step 1 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, the EPA identifies 

monitoring sites that are projected to 

have problems attaining and/or 

maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023 

analytic year. Where the EPA’s analysis 

shows that a site does not fall under the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor, that site is 

excluded from further analysis under 

the EPA’s 4-step interstate transport 

framework. Where the EPA’s analysis 

shows that a site does meet the 

definition of a nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor in 2023, we 

proceed to the next step of our 4-step 

interstate transport framework by 

identifying the upwind state’s 

contribution to those receptors. 

The EPA’s approach to identifying 

ozone nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in this action is consistent 

with the approach used in previous 

transport rulemakings. The EPA’s 

approach gives independent 

consideration to both the ‘‘contribute 

significantly to nonattainment’’ and 

‘‘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.33

For the purpose of this proposal, the 

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 the 

CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined 

nonattainment receptors as those areas 

that both currently measure 

nonattainment and that the EPA projects 

will be in nonattainment in the future 

analytic year (i.e., 2023).34

In addition, in this proposal, the EPA 

identifies a receptor to be a 

‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for the purpose 

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.35 Specifically, 

the EPA identified maintenance 

receptors as those receptors that would 

have difficulty maintaining the relevant 

NAAQS in a scenario that takes into 

account historical variability in air 

quality at that receptor. The variability 

in air quality was determined by 

evaluating the ‘‘maximum’’ future 

design value at each receptor based on 

a projection of the maximum measured 

design value over the relevant period. 

The EPA interprets the projected 

maximum future design value to be a 

potential future air quality outcome 

consistent with the meteorology that 

yielded maximum measured 

concentrations in the ambient data set 

analyzed for that receptor (i.e., 

meteorology conducive to ozone 

formation). The EPA also recognizes 

that previously experienced 

meteorological conditions (e.g., 

dominant wind direction, temperatures, 

air mass patterns) promoting ozone 

formation that led to maximum 

concentrations in the measured data 

may reoccur in the future. The 

maximum design value gives a 

reasonable projection of future air 

quality at the receptor under a scenario 

in which such conditions do, in fact, 

reoccur. The projected maximum design 

value is used to identify upwind 

emissions that, under those 

circumstances, could interfere with the 

downwind area’s ability to maintain the 

NAAQS. 

Recognizing that nonattainment 

receptors are also, by definition, 

maintenance receptors, the EPA often 

uses the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to 

refer to those receptors that are not 

nonattainment receptors. Consistent 

with the concepts for maintenance 

receptors, as described previously in 

this section, the EPA identifies 

‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors as those 

monitoring sites that have projected 

average design values above the level of 

the applicable NAAQS, but that are not 

currently measuring nonattainment 

based on the most recent official design 

values. In addition, those monitoring 

sites with projected average design 

values below the NAAQS, but with 

projected maximum design values above 

the NAAQS are also identified as 

‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors, even if 

they are currently measuring 

nonattainment based on the most recent 

official design values. 

3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

In Step 2 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, the EPA quantifies 

the contribution of each upwind state to 

each nonattainment and maintenance 

receptor (as determined in Step 1) in the 

2023 analytic year. The contribution 

metric used in Step 2 is defined as the 

average impact from each state to each 

receptor on the days with the highest 

ozone concentrations at the receptor 

based on the 2023 modeling. If a state’s 

contribution value does not equal or 

exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the 

NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 parts per billion [ppb] 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS), the 

upwind state is not ‘‘linked’’ to a 

downwind air quality problem, and the 

EPA therefore concludes that the state 

does not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the 

downwind states. However, if a state’s 

contribution equals or exceeds the 1 

percent threshold, the state’s emissions 

are further evaluated in Step 3 

considering both air quality and cost as 

part of a multi-factor analysis to 

determine what, if any, emissions might 

be deemed ‘‘significant’’ and must 

therefore be eliminated under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is 

proposing to rely on the 1 percent 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37781 

36See 81 FR 74504, 74518. See also 86 FR 23054, 

23085 (reviewing and explaining rationale from 

CSAPR) and 76 FR 48208, 48237–48238 (for 

selection of 1 percent threshold). 

37As examples of general approaches for how 

such an analysis could be conducted for their 

sources, states could look to the CSAPR Update (81 

FR 74504, 74539–74551), CSAPR (76 FR 48208, 

48246–48263), CAIR (70 FR 25162, 25195–25229), 

or the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, 57399–57405). 

See also the Revised CSAPR Update (86 FR 23054, 

23086–23116). Consistently across these 

rulemakings, the EPA has developed emissions 

inventories, analyzed different levels of control 

stringency at different cost thresholds, and assessed 

resulting downwind air quality improvements. 

38See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (‘‘Each such [SIP] 

shall . . . contain adequate provisions . . .’’). See 

also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a 

Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169, 1175–1176 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by state 

to meet CAA requirements must be included in the 

SIP). 

39Letter dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy 

S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, 

to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region IX, Subject: ‘‘Submittal of the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone 

NAAQS.’’ 

40 2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal, 12. 

41 Id. at 13. 

threshold for the purpose of evaluating 

a state’s contribution to nonattainment 

or maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind 

receptors. This is consistent with the 

Step 2 approach that the EPA applied in 

CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

which has subsequently been applied in 

the CSAPR Update when evaluating 

interstate transport obligations for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA continues 

to find 1 percent to be an appropriate 

threshold. For ozone, as the EPA found 

in the Clean Air Interstate Rule, CSAPR, 

and CSAPR Update, a portion of the 

nonattainment problems from 

anthropogenic sources in the United 

States results from the combined impact 

of relatively small contributions from 

many upwind states along with 

contributions from in-state sources and, 

in some cases, substantially larger 

contributions from a subset of particular 

upwind states. The EPA’s analysis 

shows that much of the ozone transport 

problem being analyzed in this 

proposed rule is still the result of the 

collective impacts of contributions from 

many upwind states. Therefore, 

application of a consistent contribution 

threshold is necessary to identify those 

upwind states that should have 

responsibility for addressing their 

contribution to the downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

problems to which they collectively 

contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent 

of the NAAQS as the screening metric 

to evaluate collective contribution from 

many upwind states also allows the EPA 

(and states) to apply a consistent 

framework to evaluate interstate 

emissions transport under the interstate 

transport provision from one NAAQS to 

the next.36

The EPA’s August 2018 memorandum 

recognized that in certain circumstances 

a state may be able to establish that an 

alternative contribution threshold of 1 

ppb is justifiable. Where a state relies on 

this alternative threshold, and where 

that state determined it was not linked 

at Step 2 using the alternative threshold, 

the EPA will evaluate whether the state 

provided a technically sound 

assessment of the appropriateness of 

using this alternative threshold based on 

the facts and circumstances underlying 

its application in the particular SIP 

submission. 

4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

Consistent with the EPA’s 

longstanding approach to eliminating 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance, at Step 3 of the 4-step 

interstate transport framework, states 

linked at Steps 1 and 2 are generally 

expected to prepare a multifactor 

assessment of potential emissions 

controls. The EPA’s analysis at Step 3 in 

prior federal actions addressing 

interstate transport requirements has 

primarily focused on an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness of potential emissions 

controls (on a marginal cost-per-ton 

basis), the total emissions reductions 

that may be achieved by requiring such 

controls (if applied across all linked 

upwind states), and an evaluation of the 

air quality impacts such emissions 

reductions would have on the 

downwind receptors to which a state is 

linked; other factors may potentially be 

relevant if adequately supported. In 

general, where the EPA’s or alternative 

air quality and contribution modeling 

establishes that a state is linked at Steps 

1 and 2, it will be insufficient at Step 

3 for a state to merely point to its 

existing rules requiring control 

measures as a basis for approval. In 

general, the emissions-reducing effects 

of all existing emissions control 

requirements are already reflected in the 

air quality results of the modeling for 

Steps 1 and 2. If the state is shown to 

still be linked to one or more downwind 

receptor(s), states must provide a welldocumented evaluation determining 

whether their emissions constitute 

significant contribution or interference 

with maintenance by evaluating 

additional available control 

opportunities by preparing a multifactor 

assessment. While the EPA has not 

prescribed a particular method for this 

assessment, the EPA expects states at a 

minimum to present a sufficient 

technical evaluation. This would 

typically include information on 

emissions sources, applicable control 

technologies, emissions reductions, 

costs, cost effectiveness, and downwind 

air quality impacts of the estimated 

reductions, before concluding that no 

additional emissions controls should be 

required.37

5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate 

Transport Framework 

At Step 4 of the 4-step interstate 

transport framework, states (or the EPA) 

develop permanent and federally 

enforceable control strategies to achieve 

the emissions reductions determined to 

be necessary at Step 3 to eliminate 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS. For a state 

linked at Steps 1 and 2 to rely on an 

emissions control measure at Step 3 to 

address its interstate transport 

obligations, that measure must be 

included in the state’s SIP so that it is 

permanent and federally enforceable.38

II. Arizona’s Submission 

On September 24, 2018, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the 

‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan 

Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (‘‘the 2018 Ozone I–SIP 

submittal’’) addressing the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.39 In this proposed rulemaking, 

the EPA is evaluating the section of the 

2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal addressing 

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

The 2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal 

describes the 4-step framework 

established by the EPA to address the 

good neighbor provision.40 Arizona 

references the results of the ozone 

modeling completed by the EPA using 

CAMx version 6.40, made available in 

the March 2018 memorandum. Arizona 

noted that the modeling demonstrates 

that Arizona is not shown to contribute 

greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS 

(i.e., 0.70 ppb) to any of the modeled 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

in other states.41 Despite asserting that 

‘‘Arizona still maintains that the 1 

percent threshold is poorly suited for 

determining contribution obligations in 

the Southwestern US,’’ Arizona relies 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37782 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

42 Id. 

43 Id. 

44 Id. at 14. 

45See CAA section 110(k)(2). 

46While the EPA does not, in this action, approve 

of the state’s suggestion or rationale to rely on an 

alternative threshold, based on the state’s 

contributions of less than 1 percent to projected 

downwind nonattainment or maintenance 

receptors, and the state’s reliance on a 1 percent 

threshold in its submittal, the consideration of an 

alternative threshold is inconsequential to our 

action on this SIP submittal. The EPA is proposing 

to approve Arizona’s SIP submission on the basis 

of the use of a 1 percent contribution threshold at 

Step 2. 

47 Design values and contributions at individual 

monitoring sites nationwide are provide in the file 

2016v2_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx which is 

included in docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021– 

0663. 

48The EPA’s analysis indicates that Arizona will 

have a 0.40 ppb impact at the projected 

nonattainment receptor in Jefferson County, 

Colorado (site ID 80590011), which has a monitored 

2020 design value of 80 ppb, a 2023 projected 

average design value of 73.8 ppb, and a 2023 

projected maximum design value of 74.4 ppb. 

Furthermore, the EPA’s analysis indicates that 

Arizona will have a 0.21 ppb impact at the 

projected maintenance-only receptor in Clark 

County, Nevada (site ID 320030075), which has a 

monitored 2020 design value of 74 ppb, a 2023 

projected average design value of 70.0 ppb, and a 

2023 projected maximum design value of 71.0 ppb. 

on the 1 percent of the NAAQS 

contribution threshold at Step 2.42

Based on the model results, Arizona 

finds that it does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in other states 

and that it is not necessary to identify 

emissions reductions or adopt any 

permanent or enforceable controls 

under the interstate transport provision 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.43 Arizona 

also asserts that the Arizona SIP 

contains adequate provisions to ensure 

that air emissions in Arizona will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state in the future.44

The EPA notes that CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 

require states to provide reasonable 

notice and an opportunity for a public 

hearing prior to adoption of SIP 

revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires 

the EPA to determine whether a SIP 

submittal is complete within 60 days of 

receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not 

affirmatively determine to be complete 

or incomplete will become complete by 

operation of law six months after the 

day of submittal. A finding of 

completeness does not approve the 

submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it 

indicate that the submittal is 

approvable. It does start a 12-month 

clock for the EPA to act on the SIP 

submittal.45

The 2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal 

documents the public review process 

followed by Arizona prior to its 

submittal to the EPA as a revision to the 

SIP. Appendix A of the 2018 Ozone I– 

SIP submittal includes documentation 

of a notice of public hearing and 

opportunity for comment on the SIP 

submittal. The notice of public hearing 

and opportunity for comment on the SIP 

submittal was provided on August 6 and 

7, 2018. The public hearing for the SIP 

submittal was held on September 6, 

2018. The public process 

documentation in Appendix A of the 

2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal includes a 

meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, presiding 

officer certification, and hearing 

transcript for the September 6, 2018 

public hearing and a responsiveness 

summary indicating that no oral or 

written comments were received by 

ADEQ during the 30-day public review 

period. 

III. The EPA’s Evaluation 

The 2018 Ozone I–SIP submittal relies 

on the 4-step framework and the 

analytic year 2023 contribution 

modeling results provided in the March 

2018 memorandum to conclude that 

Arizona does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. 

As described in section I of this 

proposal, the EPA performed air quality 

modeling to project design values and 

contributions for 2023 using the 2016v2 

emissions platform. The EPA proposes 

to rely primarily on this updated 

modeling to evaluate Arizona’s 

transport SIP submittal. The design 

values and contributions from the 

updated modeling were examined to 

determine if Arizona contributes at or 

above the threshold of 1 percent of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor.46 The data 47

indicate that the highest contributions 

in 2023 from Arizona to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance-only 

receptors are 0.40 ppb and 0.21 ppb, 

respectively.48 The EPA’s evaluation of 

measured and monitored data and 

contribution values in 2023 indicates 

that the contribution to ozone 

concentrations in other states from 

emissions in Arizona will not exceed 

the contribution threshold of 0.70 ppb. 

The results of the EPA’s evaluation are 

consistent with the conclusion drawn 

by Arizona in the 2018 Ozone I–SIP 

submittal that emissions from sources in 

Arizona will not contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

IV. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

Based on the EPA’s evaluation of the 

impact of air emissions from Arizona to 

downwind states using 2023 analytic 

year modeling as described in this 

notice, the EPA is proposing to approve 

chapter 2.4.1 of Arizona’s 2018 Ozone I– 

SIP submittal as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA is seeking public 

comment on the issues discussed in this 

proposed rule. We will accept 

comments from the public on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. 

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, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state plans 

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); 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37783 

• 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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, 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 the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 14, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13377 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0568; FRL–9779–01– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Significant New Use Rules on Certain 

Chemical Substances (21–3.5e) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing significant 

new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 

chemical substances that were the 

subject of premanufacture notices 

(PMNs) and are also subject to Orders 

issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA. The 

SNURs require persons who intend to 

manufacture (defined by statute to 

include import) or process any of these 

chemical substances for an activity that 

is proposed as a significant new use by 

this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days 

before commencing that activity. The 

required notification initiates EPA’s 

evaluation of the use, under the 

conditions of use for that chemical 

substance, within the applicable review 

period. Persons may not commence 

manufacture or processing for the 

significant new use until EPA has 

conducted a review of the notice, made 

an appropriate determination on the 

notice, and has taken such actions as are 

required by that determination. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0568, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting or visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

William Wysong, New Chemicals 

Division (7405M), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 564–4163; 

email address: wysong.william@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or use the chemical substances 

contained in this proposed rule. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Manufacturers or processors of one 

or more subject chemical substances 

(NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., 

chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refineries. 

This action may also affect certain 

entities through pre-existing import 

certification and export notification 

rules under TSCA. Chemical importers 

are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 

U.S.C. 2612) import provisions 

promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 

12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical 

importers must certify that the shipment 

of the chemical substance complies with 

all applicable rules and Orders under 

TSCA, which would include the SNUR 

requirements should these proposed 

rules be finalized. The EPA policy in 

support of import certification appears 

at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In 

addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 721.20, 

any persons who export or intend to 

export a chemical substance that is the 

subject of this proposed rule on or after 

July 25, 2022 are subject to the export 

notification provisions of TSCA section 

12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 

721.20), and must comply with the 

export notification requirements in 40 

CFR part 707, subpart D. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing these SNURs under 

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 

2604(a)(2)) for certain chemical 

substances that were the subject of 

PMNs. These proposed SNURs would 

require persons to notify EPA at least 90 

days before commencing the 

manufacture or processing of any of 

these chemical substances for an 

activity proposed as a significant new 

use. Receipt of such notices would 

allow EPA to assess risks and, if 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1