30854 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

easterly and southerly along the 

shoreline to latitude 38°17′01.54′′ N, 

longitude 076°37′52.24′′ W; thence 

westerly terminating at point of origin. 

(5) Spectator area—(i) Northeast 

spectator fleet area. The area is bounded 

by a line commencing at position 

latitude 38°16′59.10′′ N, longitude 

076°37′45.60′′ W, thence northeasterly 

to latitude 38°17′01.76′′ N, longitude 

076°37′43.71′′ W, thence southeasterly 

to latitude 38°16′59.23′′ N, longitude 

076°37′37.25′′ W, thence southwesterly 

to latitude 38°16′53.32′′ N, longitude 

076°37′40.85′′ W, thence northwesterly 

to latitude 38°16′55.48′′ N, longitude 

076°37′46.39′′ W, thence northeasterly 

to latitude 38°16′58.61′′ N, longitude 

076°37′44.29′′ W, thence northwesterly 

to point of origin. 

(ii) Southeast spectator fleet area. The 

area is bounded by a line commencing 

at position latitude 38°16′47.20′′ N, 

longitude 076°37′54.80′′ W, thence 

southerly to latitude 38°16′43.30′′ N, 

longitude 076°37′55.20′′ W, thence 

easterly to latitude 38°16′43.20′′ N, 

longitude 076°37′47.80′′ W, thence 

northerly to latitude 38°16′44.80′′ N, 

longitude 076°37′48.20′′ W, thence 

northwesterly to point of origin. 

(iii) South spectator fleet area. The 

area is bounded by a line commencing 

at position latitude 38°16′55.36′′ N, 

longitude 076°38′17.26′′ W, thence 

southeasterly to latitude 38°16′50.39′′ N, 

longitude 076°38′03.69′′ W, thence 

southerly to latitude 38°16′48.87′′ N, 

longitude 076°38′03.68′′ W, thence 

northwesterly to latitude 38°16′53.82′′ 

N, longitude 076°38′17.28′′ W, thence 

northerly to point of origin. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section: 

Buffer area is a neutral area that 

surrounds the perimeter of the race area 

within the regulated area described by 

this section. The purpose of a buffer 

area is to minimize potential collision 

conflicts with marine event participants 

or race boats and spectator vessels or 

nearby transiting vessels. This area 

provides separation between a race area 

and specified spectator areas or other 

vessels that are operating in the vicinity 

of the regulated area established by the 

special local regulations in this section. 

Captain of the Port (COTP) MarylandNational Capital Region means the 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region or 

any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant 

or petty officer who has been authorized 

by the COTP to act on his behalf. 

Event Patrol Commander or Event 

PATCOM means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region. 

Milling area is an area described by a 

line bound by coordinates provided in 

latitude and longitude that outlines the 

boundary of a milling area within the 

regulated area defined by this section. 

The area is used before a demonstration 

start to warm up the boats engines. 

Official patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National 

Capital Region with a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer on board and 

displaying a Coast Guard ensign. 

Participant means a person or vessel 

registered with the event sponsor as 

participating in the Southern Maryland 

Boat Club Leonardtown Regatta or 

otherwise designated by the event 

sponsor as having a function tied to the 

event. 

Race area is an area described by a 

line bound by coordinates provided in 

latitude and longitude that outlines the 

boundary of a high-speed power boat 

demonstration area within the regulated 

area defined by this section. 

Spectator means a person or vessel 

not registered with the event sponsor as 

participants or assigned as official 

patrols and is present with the purpose 

of observing the event. 

Spectator area is an area described by 

a line bound by coordinates provided in 

latitude and longitude that outlines the 

boundary of a spectator area within the 

regulated area defined by this section. 

(c) Special local regulations. (1) The 

COTP Maryland-National Capital 

Region or Event PATCOM may forbid 

and control the movement of all vessels 

and persons, including event 

participants, in the regulated area. 

When hailed or signaled by an official 

patrol, a vessel or person in the 

regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given by the 

patrol. Failure to do so may result in the 

Coast Guard expelling the person or 

vessel from the area, issuing a citation 

for failure to comply, or both. The COTP 

Maryland-National Capital Region or 

Event PATCOM may terminate the 

event, or a participant’s operations at 

any time the COTP Maryland-National 

Capital Region or Event PATCOM 

believes it necessary to do so for the 

protection of life or property. 

(2) Except for participants and vessels 

already at berth, a person or vessel 

within the regulated area at the start of 

enforcement of this section must 

immediately depart the regulated area. 

(3) A spectator must contact the Event 

PATCOM to request permission to 

either enter or pass through the 

regulated area. The Event PATCOM, and 

official patrol vessels enforcing this 

regulated area, can be contacted on 

marine band radio VHF–FM channel 16 

(156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 

MHz). If permission is granted, the 

spectator must pass directly through the 

regulated area as instructed by Event 

PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated 

area must operate at safe speed that 

minimizes wake. 

(4) Only participant vessels and 

official patrol vessels are allowed to 

enter the race area and milling area. 

(5) Only participant vessels and 

official patrol vessels are allowed to 

enter and transit directly through the 

buffer area, in order to arrive at or 

depart from the race area. 

(6) A person or vessel that desires to 

transit, moor, or anchor within the 

regulated area must obtain authorization 

from the COTP Maryland-National 

Capital Region or PATCOM. A person or 

vessel seeking such permission can 

contact the COTP Maryland-National 

Capital Region at telephone number 

410–576–2693 or on Marine Band 

Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band 

Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(7) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement officials. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted with marine 

event patrol and enforcement of the 

regulated area by other Federal, State, 

and local agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

on July 31, 2021, and from 7 a.m. to 6 

p.m. on August 1, 2021. 

Dated: June 4, 2021. 

David E. O’Connell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Maryland-National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12168 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0250; FRL–10024– 

67–Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Maine and New 

Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

Interstate Transport Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30855 

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 (2008). 

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

5Wisconsin v. EPA 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). 

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 States of Maine and 

New Hampshire each made submissions 

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 submissions 

for each state 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 July 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2021–0250 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 

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, tel. (617) 918–1684, email 

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. Maine Submission 

III. New Hampshire Submission 

IV. EPA Evaluation of the States’ Submittals 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. 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 four so-called ‘‘prongs’’ 

within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 

1 and 2. Under prongs 1 and 2 of the 

good neighbor provision, 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), considering airquality and cost factors, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30856 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 memorandum’’), 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/meme-and-supplemental-informationregarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozonenaaqs. 

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. 

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 

memorandum) 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 

memorandum) noting that the same 

2023 modeling data released in the 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 

four-step interstate transport framework. 

The March 2018 memorandum 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 

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 Maine 

and New Hampshire relied on the 

modeling included in the March 2018 

memo to develop their SIP submissions 

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 

notice 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 for the 

purpose of evaluating Maine and New 

Hampshire’s contributions 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30857 

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). 

17New Hampshire incorrectly stated in its 

September 2018 good neighbor SIP submission that 

the state’s highest projected contribution for 2023 

to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor is 6 ppb; the modeled value should be 0.06 

ppb as correctly shown in Table 1 of the 

submission. New Hampshire also incorrectly stated 

in their submission that 7 ppb, rather than 0.70 ppb, 

is 1% of the NAAQS. 

18We recognize that Maine, New Hampshire, 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 re-submit their SIP 

submissions with new analysis (in compliance with 

CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While 

neither Maine nor New Hampshire has done this, 

as explained in this section, the independent 

analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion 

confirms that the states’ submissions in this 

instance are ultimately approvable. 

19While EPA has focused its analysis in this 

notice 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 

these states in later years. This is not surprising as 

it is consistent with an overall, long-term 

downward trend in emissions from these states. 

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 

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 Maine and New Hampshire’s 

good neighbor obligations with respect 

to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

II. Maine Submission 

On February 6, 2020, Maine 

submitted a SIP revision addressing the 

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

transport requirements for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. 

Maine relied on the results of EPA’s 

modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

contained in the March 2018 

memorandum to identify downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors that may be impacted by 

emissions from sources in Maine in the 

year 2023. These results indicate 

Maine’s greatest impact on any potential 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor would be 0.01 

ppb in Suffolk County, New York 

(monitoring site 361030002). Maine 

compared this value to a screening 

threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one 

percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Because Maine’s impacts to receptors in 

downwind states are projected to be less 

than 0.70 ppb in 2023, Maine concluded 

that emissions from sources within the 

state will not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

III. New Hampshire Submission 

On September 5, 2018, New 

Hampshire submitted a SIP revision 

addressing the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 

requirements for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. This ‘‘good neighbor SIP’’ was 

included as an enclosure in the state’s 

infrastructure SIP for the same NAAQS. 

New Hampshire relied on the results 

of EPA’s modeling for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS contained in the March 2018 

memorandum to identify downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors that may be impacted by 

emissions from sources in New 

Hampshire in the year 2023. These 

results indicate New Hampshire’s 

greatest impact on any potential 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor would be 0.06 

ppb in Queens County, New York 

(monitoring site 360810124). New 

Hampshire compared this value to a 

screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, 

representing one percent of the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Because New 

Hampshire’s impacts to receptors in 

downwind states are projected to be less 

than 0.70 ppb in 2023,17 New 

Hampshire concluded that emissions 

from sources within the state will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. 

New Hampshire’s September 2018 

good neighbor SIP submission also lists 

New Hampshire’s regulations for 

controlling emissions of ozone 

precursors as well as its regional 

emissions-control strategies. These 

include Env-A 619, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), and 

Env-A 618, Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) (82 FR 24057; May 25, 

2017); and Env-A 2300, Mitigation of 

Regional Haze (77 FR 50602; August 22, 

2012). 

IV. EPA Evaluation of the States’ 

Submittals 

Maine and New Hampshire’s SIP 

submissions both rely on analysis of the 

year 2023 to show that each state does 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. However, given the 

holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, 

analysis of that year is no longer 

sufficient where the next attainment 

date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is in 

2021.18 Nonetheless, the analysis EPA 

conducted for the 2021 analytical year 

corroborates the conclusion reached in 

each state’s submission. 

As stated in Section I of this notice, 

in consideration of the holdings in 

Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA’s 

analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant 

attainment year for evaluating a State’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 future year. Where 

EPA’s analysis shows that an area or site 

does not fall under the definition of a 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

in 2021, that site is excluded from 

further analysis under EPA’s four step 

interstate transport framework.19 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 section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30858 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

20 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that EPA must 

give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 21See 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 913–914 (affirming as 

reasonable EPA’s approach to defining 

nonattainment in CAIR). 

22See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR 

Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this 

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

See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). 

23See 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). 

24The 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. 

25This is because ground-level ozone is not 

emitted directly into the air but is formed by 

chemical reactions between ozone precursors, 

chiefly NOX and non-methane VOCs, in the 

presence of sunlight. 

26 81 FR 74504, 74513–14. 

D.C. Circuit’s direction in North 

Carolina.20

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.21

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).22 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, 

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 EPA/MJO/state collaborative 

emissions modeling platform project as 

the primary source for base year and 

2023 future year emissions data for this 

proposal.23 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 of 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 Maine and New 

Hampshire, considered separately, 

contribute 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 24 indicate that the highest 

contribution in 2021 from Maine to a 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor is 0.01 ppb to a 

maintenance receptor in Fairfield 

County, Connecticut (monitoring site 

90013007), and, from New Hampshire, 

is 0.10 ppb to the same downwind 

receptor. The data also show modeled 

ozone contributions from Maine and 

New Hampshire 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 Maine to any 

of these sites is 0.12 ppb to monitors in 

Putnam and Westchester Counties in 

New York (monitoring sites 360790005 

and 361192004; #307 and #314 on the 

Design Values and Contributions 

spreadsheet), and, from New 

Hampshire, is 1.46 ppb to the monitor 

in Knox County, Maine (monitoring site 

230130004; #226 on the Design Values 

and Contributions spreadsheet). While 

New Hampshire’s modeled contribution 

to the Knox County monitor exceeds 

one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 

EPA’s analysis at step 1 does not 

identify the Knox County monitor as a 

downwind area that may have problems 

maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

The Knox County monitor’s projected 

design value in 2021 is 57.4 ppb. 

EPA also analyzed emissions trends 

for ozone precursors in Maine and New 

Hampshire to support the findings from 

the air quality analysis. In evaluating 

emissions trends, we first reviewed the 

information submitted by each state and 

then reviewed additional information 

available to the Agency. We focused on 

state-wide emissions of nitrogen oxides 

and volatile organic compounds.25 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 Maine, 

between 2016 and 2023, annual total 

NOX and VOC emissions are projected 

to decline by 38 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively. For New Hampshire, 

between 2016 and 2023, annual total 

NOX and VOC emissions are projected 

to decline by 36 percent and 15 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 Maine and New 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30859 

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). 

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 

Tier1 Emissions’’ and the Emissions Modeling TSD 

in the docket for this action. 

Hampshire, as indicated by EPA’s most 

recent 2021 and 2023 projected 

emissions. 

As shown in Table 2, onroad and 

nonroad mobile source emissions 

collectively comprise a large portion of 

each state’s total anthropogenic NOX

and VOC. For example, in 2019, NOX

emissions from mobile sources in Maine 

comprised 52 percent of total NOX

emissions and 48 percent of total VOC 

emissions. In New Hampshire for that 

same year, NOX emissions from mobile 

sources comprised 54 percent of total 

NOX emissions and 45 percent of total 

VOC emissions. 

The large decrease in NOX emissions 

between 2016 emissions and projected 

2023 emissions in each state is 

primarily driven by reductions in 

emissions from onroad and nonroad 

mobile sources. EPA projects that both 

VOC and NOX emissions will continue 

declining out to 2023 as newer vehicles 

and engines that are subject to the most 

recent, stringent mobile source 

standards replace older vehicles and 

engines.27

In summary, there is no evidence to 

suggest that the overall emissions trend 

demonstrated in Table 1 in either state 

will 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 out to 

2023 and beyond would not continue to 

show a decline in emissions. In 

addition, EPA’s normal practice is to 

include 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 

Maine and New Hampshire adds 

support to the air quality analyses 

presented above for each state, and 

indicates that the contributions from 

emissions from sources in Maine and 

New Hampshire to ozone receptors in 

downwind states will continue to 

decline and, for each state, remain 

below one percent of the NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Tons per year] 28

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

ME NOx ................. 59,773 57,292 54,812 52,332 51,871 49,148 49,889 48,440 46,542 33,996 30,536 

ME VOC ................ 64,079 61,860 59,641 57,422 54,686 49,630 48,284 47,024 45,665 41,197 39,562 

NH NOx ................. 36,554 37,065 37,577 38,086 35,025 30,775 28,530 27,408 25,680 21,822 19,579 

NH VOC ................ 45,859 44,159 42,459 40,731 38,275 34,234 33,026 31,928 31,193 29,640 28,872 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ONROAD AND NONROAD VEHICLES IN MAINE AND NEW

HAMPSHIRE

[Tons per year] 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Projected 

2021 

Projected 

2023 

ME .........................

NOx ........................ 41,601 38,861 36,122 33,382 31,465 27,286 26,570 25,714 24,005 17,841 16,214 

ME VOC ................ 40,376 38,091 35,805 33,519 30,884 25,929 24,683 23,423 22,064 18,037 16,499 

NH NOx ................. 26,038 24,979 23,921 22,862 20,835 17,619 16,408 15,022 13,970 10,776 9,878 

NH VOC ................ 25,314 24,184 23,054 21,924 20,027 16,544 15,895 14,796 14,062 11,947 11,277 

Thus, EPA’s air quality and emissions 

analyses indicate that emissions from 

Maine or from New Hampshire, with 

each state considered individually, will 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state in 2021. 

V. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Sections II and III, 

Maine and New Hampshire have each 

concluded that emissions from sources 

in their individual state will not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. Each state 

submission reached this conclusion by 

relying on information for the analytic 

year 2023. As discussed above, the 

Wisconsin and Maryland decisions of 

the D.C. Circuit have made clear that the 

good neighbor analysis for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS must focus on the next 

attainment date, and that date is the 

Marginal area attainment date in 2021. 

Therefore, EPA conducted additional 

analysis to determine whether each 

state’s conclusions would remain valid 

in 2021 rather than 2023. EPA’s 

evaluation of measured and monitored 

data, including interpolating values to 

generate a reasonable expectation of air 

quality and contribution values in 2021, 

as discussed in Section IV, is consistent 

with conclusions made by Maine and 

New Hampshire that, with each state 

considered separately, emissions from 

sources in each state will not contribute 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state. Because our analysis 

corroborates each state’s conclusion that 

emissions from within its state do not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in another state, we propose to 

approve the Maine and New Hampshire 

submissions as meeting CAA section 

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

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this notice. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to this 

proposed rule by following the 

instructions listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

VI. 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 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 3, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12079 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2, 87, and 90 

[ET Docket No. 13–115; RM 11341; FCC 21– 

44; FR ID 27947] 

Allocation of Spectrum for Non-Federal 

Space Launch Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) takes steps towards 

establishing a spectrum allocation and 

licensing framework that will provide 

regulatory certainty and improved 

efficiency and that will promote 

innovation and investment in the 

United States commercial space launch 

industry. In the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 

seeks comment on the definition of 

space launch operations, the potential 

allocation of spectrum for the 

commercial space launch industry, 

including the 420–430 MHz, 2025–2110 

MHz, and 5650–5925 MHz bands. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on establishing service rules, 

including licensing and technical rules 

and coordination procedures, for the use 

of spectrum for commercial space 

launch operations. Finally, the 

Commission seeks to refresh the record 

on potential ways to facilitate Federal 

use of commercial satellite services in 

what are currently non-Federal satellite 

bands and enable more robust federal 

use of the 399.9–400.05 MHz band. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 12, 2021; reply comments are due 

on or before August 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 13–115, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, at (202) 418–0636 or 

Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov; Peter 

Trachtenberg, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at 

Peter.Trachtenberg@fcc.gov or 202–418– 

7369; or Kimberly Baum, International 

Bureau, at Kimberly.Baum@fcc.gov or 

202–418–2752. For information 

regarding the PRA information 

collection requirements contained in 

this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office 

of Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 

or Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), ET 

Docket No. 13–115, FCC 21–44, adopted 

and released on April 22, 2020. This 

document is available by downloading 

the text from the Commission’s website 

at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccseeks-make-spectrum-availablecommercial-space-launches-0. When 

the FCC Headquarters reopens to the 

public, the full text of this document 

also will be available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 

20554. Alternative formats are available 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format) by sending an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS