Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156-0040
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Posted Date: 2021-12-02T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 229 (Thursday, December 2, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68413-68421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26144]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-8697-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 
and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is 
approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Florida, 
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, addressing the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) Good Neighbor interstate transport infrastructure SIP 
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS or standards). EPA has determined that each state's SIP 
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken 
in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's

[[Page 68414]]

official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and 
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be 
reached by telephone at (404) 562-9009, or via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee \1\ as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the Good Neighbor provision, for the 
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854. Specifically, the 2019 notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) originally proposed to find that 
emissions from sources in these states will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state based on information for the 
analytic year 2023, consistent with the 2024 Moderate area attainment 
date. Refer to the December 30, 2019 NPRM for an explanation of the CAA 
requirements, the four-step framework that EPA applies under the Good 
Neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed summary of the state 
submissions, and EPA's proposed rationale for approval. See 84 FR 
71854. The public comment period for the December 30, 2019, NPRM closed 
on January 29, 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The submittals from these six southeastern states were 
submitted separately under the following cover letters: Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management dated August 20, 2018 
(received by EPA on August 27, 2018); Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection dated September 18, 2018 (received by EPA 
on September 26, 2018); Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
dated September 19, 2018 (received by EPA on September 24, 2018); 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality dated September 
27, 2018 (received by EPA October 10, 2018); South Carolina 
Department of Health and Environmental Control dated and received by 
EPA on September 7, 2018; and Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation dated September 13, 2018 (received by EPA on 
September 17, 2018).
    \2\ On March 24, 2020, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary 
Walker signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the March 24, 
2020 document) that EPA had intended to become a final rule upon 
publication in the Federal Register. However, the March 24, 2020 
document was never published in the Federal Register. Further, on 
January 19, 2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary Walker 
signed a second document (hereinafter referred to as the January 19, 
2021 document) that EPA had intended to become a final rule, which 
EPA posted to its website at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015-8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements. EPA noted in that posting ``Notwithstanding 
the fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication version, the 
final rule will not be promulgated until published in the Federal 
Register.'' EPA will not publish either the March 24, 2020 document 
or the January 19, 2021 document in the Federal Register, and now 
intends that this notice constitutes final action with respect to 
the 2019 proposal, superseding all versions of previous draft final 
action documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM on December 30, 2019, two 
events caused EPA to adjust its analysis of the aforementioned SIP 
submissions. First, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in Maryland v. 
EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Maryland), which held that EPA 
must address Good Neighbor obligations consistent with the 2021 
attainment date for downwind areas classified as being in Marginal 
nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, ``not at some later 
date.'' 958 F.3d at 1203-04 (citing Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314 
(D.C. Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin)).\3\ Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA 
released and accepted public comment on updated 2023 modeling that used 
the 2016 emissions platform developed under the EPA/Multi-
Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state collaborative project as the 
primary source for the base year and future year emissions data. On 
April 30, 2021, EPA published the final Revised Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (Revised CSAPR 
Update) using the same modeling that was made publicly available in the 
proposed rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update.\4\ Although that 
modeling focused on the year 2023, EPA conducted an interpolation 
analysis of these modeling results to generate air quality and 
contribution values for the 2021 analytic year, consistent with the 
Maryland holding, as the relevant analytic year for the 2015 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Maryland involved EPA's denial of administrative petitions 
filed by the states of Maryland and Delaware under CAA section 
126(b), seeking to have EPA impose emissions limits on sources in 
upwind states alleged to be emitting in violation of the Good 
Neighbor Provision. The court disagreed with EPA that use of a 2023 
analytic year, consistent with the 2024 attainment date for areas 
classified as being in Moderate nonattainment, was a proper reading 
of the court's earlier decision in Wisconsin. Id. at 1204.
    \4\ Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 
Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054; see also Emissions Modeling TSD titled 
``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v1 North American 
Emissions Modeling Platform.'' This TSD is available in the docket 
for this action and at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v1-platform. The underlying modeling files are available on data 
drives in the Docket office for public review. See the docket for 
the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272). See also Air 
Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final RCU.pdf, available in the docket 
for this action for a file inventory and instructions on how to 
access the modeling files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, EPA issued a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNPRM) on July 19, 2021, which relied on the new modeling 
and analysis to supplement EPA's proposed finding in the December 30, 
2019 NPRM that emissions from sources in Florida, Georgia, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in any other state.\5\ See 86 FR 37942. The new modeling and 
analysis indicated that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina, individually, will not contribute greater than one percent of 
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to any potential nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors in 2021. In addition, EPA analyzed past and 
projected emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)), finding a 
downward trend in emissions to support the modeling analysis and 
indicate that the contributions from emissions from sources in Florida, 
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to ozone receptors in 
downwind states will continue to decline and remain below one percent 
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, the July 19, 2021 SNPRM provided 
that ``EPA continues to propose to approve the interstate transport 
portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.'' See 
86 FR 37942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA previously proposed to approve infrastructure SIP 
elements submitted to fulfill the interstate transport requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the states of Alabama and 
Tennessee for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the December 30, 2019, 
NPRM referenced previously in this rule. However, the July 19, 2021 
SNPRM did not address these submissions, and EPA is deferring action 
on the referenced SIP submissions from Alabama and Tennessee at this 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technical rationale for EPA's proposed action is given in the 
July 19, 2021 SNPRM and in supportive materials contained in the docket 
for this action. The comment period for the July 19, 2021 SNPRM closed 
on August 18, 2021, and EPA received no additional comments. However, 
EPA did receive comments on the original December 30, 2019 NPRM, and 
relevant responses are provided in section II. EPA is finalizing the 
approval of this action based on the technical rationale

[[Page 68415]]

presented in the July 19, 2021 SNPRM and in accordance with the CAA.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received four sets of adverse comments and one set of 
supportive comments on the December 30, 2019, NPRM. The comments were 
submitted by the Midwest Ozone Group, Sierra Club, New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection, New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation, and one anonymous commenter. The full set 
of comments is provided in the docket for this final rule. This section 
contains summaries of the comments and EPA's responses.
    Comment 1: Several commenters asserted that EPA's December 30, 2019 
NPRM improperly focused on the analytic year of 2023, which the 
commenters argue ignores the August 2021 attainment date faced by 
Marginal 2015 ozone nonattainment areas. These commenters asserted that 
EPA's decision focused on 2023 (consistent with the August 2024 
attainment date for Moderate nonattainment areas under the 2015 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS, rather than the August 2021 attainment date for Marginal 
nonattainment areas), which contravenes the statutory text and the 
Wisconsin decision, and is arbitrary and capricious. The commenters 
specifically mention that the distinction EPA has drawn between 
Marginal and Moderate areas is misleading, that it is unreasonable for 
EPA to expect downwind areas to voluntarily request reclassifications 
to Moderate, and that EPA has not provided adequate support for its 
assumption that Marginal areas will achieve attainment by 2021. A 
commenter also contended that the CSAPR Update is insufficient to bring 
all downwind states into attainment with the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
citing a conclusion made in the December 30, 2019, NPRM in support of a 
2023 analytic year and monitoring data from the 2017 ozone season 
indicating certain 8-hour daily maximum concentrations at air quality 
monitors in Delaware were above the level of the NAAQS. In addition, a 
commenter asserted that recent monitoring data at other monitoring 
sites suggests that these areas will continue to have difficulty 
attaining the NAAQS in 2021.
    Response 1: The comments related to the 2023 analytic year refer to 
a D.C. Circuit court decision addressing, in part, the issue of the 
relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating interstate ozone 
transport under the Good Neighbor provision. On September 13, 2019, the 
D.C. Circuit issued the Wisconsin decision, remanding the CSAPR Update 
(81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016) to the extent that it failed to require 
upwind states to eliminate their significant contribution no later than 
the next applicable attainment date by which downwind states must come 
into compliance with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 
181(a). See 938 F.3d 303, 313. In the December 30, 2019 NPRM, EPA had 
interpreted that holding as limited to the attainment dates for 
Moderate nonattainment area or higher classifications under CAA section 
181 on the basis that Marginal nonattainment areas have reduced 
planning requirements and other considerations. See 84 FR 71854, 71856-
58.
    On May 19, 2020, however, the D.C. Circuit issued the Maryland 
decision that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must 
assess the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next 
downwind attainment date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in 
evaluating the basis for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 
126(b). See 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04. The court noted that ``section 
126(b) incorporates the Good Neighbor Provision,'' and therefore ``the 
EPA must find a violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will 
significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind 
attainment deadline. Therefore, the EPA must evaluate downwind air 
quality at that deadline, not at some later date.'' Id. at 1204 
(emphasis added). EPA interprets the court's holding in Maryland as 
requiring the Agency, under the Good Neighbor provision, to address 
Good Neighbor obligations by no later than the next applicable 
attainment date for downwind areas, including a Marginal area 
attainment date under section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that the court in Maryland did not have occasion 
to evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind 
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of 
the four-step interstate transport framework by a particular 
attainment date, but for reasons of impossibility or profound 
uncertainty the Agency is unable to mandate upwind pollution 
controls by that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. 
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient showing, these 
circumstances may warrant a certain degree of flexibility in 
effectuating the implementation of the Good Neighbor provision. Such 
circumstances are not at issue in the present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The December 30, 2019 NPRM proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour 
ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and 
South Carolina on the basis of a 2023 analytic year analysis predates 
the D.C. Circuit's decisions in Wisconsin and Maryland. In the July 19, 
2021 SNPRM, EPA explained why it now considers 2021 to be the relevant 
analytic year for the purposes of determining whether sources in 
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will significantly 
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of 
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. See 86 FR 37944. Also 
in the July 19, 2021 SNPRM, EPA conducted an additional analysis for 
the year 2021, and provided additional notice and opportunity for 
public comment. Id. Thus, comments regarding the improper use of 2023 
as a model year are now moot.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA recognizes that this action is now being finalized after 
the Marginal area attainment date has passed and after the close of 
the 2021 ozone season. However, this does not change EPA's analysis 
or its conclusion. The modeling information available in the record 
and included in the supplemental proposal also indicates that these 
four states will not be linked to any downwind nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors in 2023 and 2028, confirming that no new 
linkages to downwind receptors are projected in later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple commenters stated that the approach for identifying 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the original December 30, 
2019 NPRM failed to identify all of the potential receptors relevant in 
a 2021 analytic year. In addition to their objections to EPA's 
selection of the 2023 analytic year, these commenters argued that 
measured design values at certain monitoring sites made clear that 
certain areas would not be able to attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
by the 2021 Marginal area attainment date. The shift in the July 19, 
2021 SNPRM and this final action to a 2021 analytic year partially 
addresses the concerns raised by these commenters. To the extent 
commenters are arguing that EPA's method of defining nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors for Good Neighbor purposes ignores certain areas 
that may have air quality problems in 2021 based solely on historical 
measured data, EPA disagrees with these comments. EPA's method of 
defining these receptors, as described in section II of the SNPRM takes 
into account both measured data and reasonable projections based on 
modeling analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Further, as recognized by the court in Wisconsin, 938 F.3d 
at 320, nonattainment areas that measure clean data in a given year, 
even if not sufficient to be redesignated to attainment based on the 
three-year design value, may qualify for up to two one-year 
extensions of their attainment dates, as provided at CAA section 
181(a)(5). Thus, simply providing the value that would be needed in 
2020 in order for an area to be designated to attainment using the 
three-year average, as some commenters did, does not present a 
complete picture of the likelihood that an area will be 
``reclassified'' or ``bumped-up.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68416]]

    Regarding the contention that the CSAPR Update, which covered the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, will not be sufficient to bring areas into 
attainment of the 2008 or 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, this is not relevant 
to the analysis in support of this action. Whether downwind states may 
or may not reach attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the 
assistance of the upwind state emissions reductions resulting from the 
CSAPR Update is not determinative of whether Florida, Georgia, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina have Good Neighbor obligations for the 
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS pursuant to the CAA. At issue is whether 
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will significantly 
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of 
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. The updated information 
presented in the SNPRM made clear that they will not, and no party 
commented on that updated information.
    Comment 2: Several commenters call into question certain 
assumptions used in EPA's 2023 air quality modeling described in the 
March 2018 memorandum. A number of commenters contend that EPA's 
modeling was flawed because it relied on ``unenforceable emissions 
limitations,'' including assumptions that power plants equipped with 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls would emit at or below 
0.10 pounds per one million British Thermal Units (lb/mmBtu) beginning 
in 2017. One commenter contended that many plants emit above that rate. 
Another commenter asserts that EPA should not approve any prong 1 and 2 
SIPs \9\ that reflect ``EPA's flawed data showing attainment by 2023.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions that prohibit any source or other types of emissions 
activity in one state from contributing significantly to 
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 
2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: As discussed previously and in the SNPRM, EPA is 
relying on updated modeling and analysis based on the 2021 analytic 
year and not the 2023 air quality modeling described in the March 2018 
memorandum. However, EPA disagrees that its assessment of air quality 
and contributions at step 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate transport 
framework is flawed because it relies on unenforceable emission 
assumptions for electric generating units (EGUs) or that those 
assumptions are otherwise unrealistic. As an initial matter, in this 
context it is appropriate for EPA to focus on actual EGU emission 
projections, rather than modeling only enforceable limits (sometimes 
referred to as ``allowable'' emissions). EPA has previously explained 
that its analysis at steps 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate 
transport framework is appropriately focused on a projection of actual 
air quality concentrations and upwind-state contributions. As EPA 
explained in the final CSAPR Close-out, this approach to conducting 
future-year modeling in the Good Neighbor analysis to identify downwind 
air quality problems and linked states is consistent with the use of 
current measured data in the designations process under section 107 of 
the CAA. See 83 FR 65878, 65887-88 (December 21, 2018).\10\ In both 
cases, the purpose is to determine whether there is an actual air 
quality problem that needs to be further addressed (in the designations 
context, whether an area is in nonattainment of a NAAQS; in the Good 
Neighbor context, whether there are expected future air quality 
problems (i.e., downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors) and 
upwind state contribution to these downwind nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors that require further analysis at steps 3 and 4). 
EPA's future-year air quality projections reflect a variety of factors, 
including current emissions data, on-the-books control measures, 
economic market influences, and meteorology. Like the factors that 
affect measured ozone concentrations used in the designations process, 
not all of the factors influencing EPA's modeling projections are or 
can be subject to enforceable limitations on emissions or ozone 
concentrations. However, EPA believes that consideration of these 
factors contributes to a reasonable estimate of anticipated future 
ozone concentrations and contributions at steps 1 and 2 of the four-
step interstate transport framework. In short, EPA's consideration of 
these factors--even when not based on or amendable to enforceable 
limits or controls--in its future-year modeling projections used at 
steps 1 and 2 of the Good Neighbor analysis is reasonable. See 83 FR at 
65888 (December 21, 2018). Only where such analysis indicates an 
upwind-state linkage under projected conditions does further analysis 
proceed at steps 3 and 4 of the four-step interstate transport 
framework to determine what enforceable emissions limits should be 
required in the linked upwind state. EPA's air quality modeling and 
analysis is designed to reflect what downwind air quality problems will 
exist in the relevant analytic year, and the assumptions used are based 
on realistic projections of source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The CSAPR Close-out was vacated on grounds unrelated to 
this issue. See New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenters' contention that EPA should not model 
using the 0.1 lb/mmBtu emission rate assumption for EGUs because it is 
not enforceable and some units emit higher than this rate, this concern 
is addressed by the updates contained in the updated 2023 modeling used 
to derive EPA's 2021 air quality analysis for this final action. 
Specifically, as noted in the SNPRM, EPA is relying on updated 
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) modeling for its EGU projection in the 
updated analysis for this final action. Additionally, EPA has modeled a 
range of scenarios reflecting alternative EGU assumptions--each 
resulting in the same finding made in this action.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Ozone Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) 
spreadsheet and the Ozone Policy Analysis TSD located in the docket 
for this action for details about these scenarios, emissions, and 
air quality estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA disagrees with these comments regarding the modeling 
approach it took at the original proposal with respect to projecting 
EGU emissions,\12\ the Agency made updates to incorporate the latest 
modeling and data, which address the concerns expressed by the 
commenters. The December 30, 2019 NPRM rule relied on air quality 
modeling analysis and data released in 2018 that showed results from 
analytic work completed in 2017 (prior to the completion of the first 
year of CSAPR Update compliance).\13\ As explained in the modeling TSD 
referenced in the July 19, 2021 SNPRM, EPA started with the latest 
historical data at that time (2016) and assumed that, on average, SCR-
controlled coal units would operate at 0.1 lb/mmBtu if not already 
doing so (reflecting the fleet's response (on average) to the CSAPR 
Update that would begin in 2017).\14\ In this final action, EPA's 
future year air quality projections are informed by actual compliance 
data from 2019, which allows EPA to rely less on compliance assumptions 
and more on actual data from the past three years in evaluating likely 
EGU emissions in 2021. EPA estimated future

[[Page 68417]]

year emissions using the January 2020 IPM Reference Case, which was 
informed by actual 2018 compliance rates rather than anticipated 
compliance rates (i.e., 2018 reported emission rates (not a 0.1 lb/
mmBtu assumption)). This largely obviates the commenters' concern 
regarding the 0.1 lb/mmBtu assumption at proposal. Moreover, the IPM 
modeling explicitly includes the CSAPR Update enforceable limits (i.e., 
the states' trading allowance budgets) at both the regional and state 
level. With these enforceable limits included, the model allowed 
covered sources to emit up to those limits if it would be economically 
advantageous to do so, but this did not occur in the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As explained further in this rule, the analysis supporting 
the December 30, 2019 proposal over-estimated EGU emissions.
    \13\ See March 2018 memorandum, located in the docket for this 
action.
    \14\ Technical Support Document (TSD) Additional Updates to 
Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling 
Platform for the Year 2023, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-11/documents/2011v6.3_2023en_update_emismod_tsd_oct2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA projected future 2021 and 2023 baseline EGU emissions using the 
version 6--January 2020 reference case of the IPM.15 16 IPM, 
developed by ICF Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed, 
multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the 
contiguous U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least 
cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control 
strategies while meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, 
dispatch, and reliability constraints. EPA has used IPM for over two 
decades to better understand power sector behavior under future 
business-as-usual conditions and to evaluate the economic and emission 
impacts of prospective environmental policies. The model is designed to 
reflect electricity markets as accurately as possible. EPA uses the 
best available information from utilities, industry experts, gas and 
coal market experts, financial institutions, and government statistics 
as the basis for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM. The model 
documentation provides additional information on the assumptions 
discussed here as well as all other model assumptions and inputs. The 
IPM version 6--January 2020 reference base case accounts for updated 
federal and state environmental regulations, committed EGU retirements 
and new builds, and technology cost and performance assumptions as of 
late 2019. This projected base case accounts for the effects of the 
finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, the CSAPR and the 
CSAPR Update, New Source Review settlements, final actions EPA has 
taken to implement the Regional Haze Rule, and other on-the-books 
federal and state rules through 2019 impacting sulfur dioxide, 
NOX, directly emitted particulate matter, and 
CO2. For the new 2023 air quality modeling used to 
interpolate air quality projections in 2021, EPA relied on these 2023 
EGU emissions to inform the broader emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/analysis-revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update (last accessed November 8, 2021).
    \16\ The January 2020 IPM reference case is a later version than 
what was released with 2016v1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EGU emissions data--both historical and projected--are shown in 
Table 1, and compared with the CSAPR Update enforceable budget, 
demonstrate: (1) The reasonableness of EPA's practice of not solely 
using enforceable levels in deriving projections of actual conditions 
and contribution at steps 1 and 2 of the interstate-transport framework 
for ozone, and (2) the robustness of its examination.

             Table 1--Reported Ozone Season NOX Emissions From EGUs in the CSAPR Update Region \17\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Reported ozone season NOX emissions (tons)                            IPM      CSAPR Update
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  projection      budget
                                                                                       (tons) \18\  (enforceable
                                                                                     --------------     tons)
     2015           2016          2017          2018          2019          2020                   -------------
                                                                                          2021          2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     398,831        371,994       294,483       289,988       251,763       227,325       222,900       313,626
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, EPA's EGUs assumptions show that its projected ozone-season 
EGU emissions levels from proposal of 283,164 tons in 2023 was, if 
anything, conservative--that is, it is likely that emissions levels 
from EGUs will be lower than what was projected in the proposal, not 
higher as suggested by the commenter. The 2019 ozone-season data 
reflected emissions that were already 20 percent below the CSAPR Update 
budgets, reflecting a 13 percent drop from the prior year, and at a 
pace of reduction that strongly suggests actual emissions from EGUs in 
2021 will be well below the CSAPR Update budget levels. In other words, 
the emissions levels that the commenter claimed were not reasonable to 
expect in 2023 have already been achieved--four years ahead of that 
analytic year. The EGU projections EPA used in its analysis for 2021, 
as discussed previously, are reasonable and properly inform its 
analysis of ozone levels and contribution in that analytic year. In 
order for emissions in 2021 to rise to total budget levels (e.g., 
313,626 tons, representing the aggregate budgets for the covered 
states), a decade-long decline in ozone-season NOX emissions 
would have to not only cease but reverse sharply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This data analysis relies on 40 CFR part 75 emissions 
reporting data as available in EPA Air Markets Program Data 
available at http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
    \18\ These values are available in the Air Quality Modeling Base 
Case State Emissions file (fossil >25 MW worksheet) available at 
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/analysis-revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. Additionally, as noted in the Revised CSAPR 
proposal, EPA's earlier engineering analytics used a more 
conservative 283,164 tons for 2023. As a sensitivity analysis for 
the proposed Revised CSAPR Update Modeling using IPM, EPA also used 
an updated engineering analytics EGU estimate (relying on 2019 data) 
that resulted in a 2021 estimate of 238,798 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Supported by the most recent reported emissions data, EPA concludes 
that its EGU projections used in the most recent modeling and in the 
interpolation of that modeling to 2021 are reasonable and conservative. 
Thus, EPA believes it is reasonable and appropriate to rely on these 
emissions projections in its air quality analysis for 2021 to approve 
the 2015 8-hour ozone transport SIP submissions for Florida, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina.
    Comment 3: A commenter states that EPA's 2023 modeling described in 
the March 2018 memorandum is also flawed given the modeling's reliance 
on certain federal emissions reduction programs, which the commenter 
argues EPA is ``actively working to undermine.'' For example, the 
commenter points to EPA's proposed repeal of its rule regulating 
emissions from glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits, 82 FR 
53442 (November 16, 2017) (Proposed Repeal of the Glider Rule), noting 
that EPA has estimated unregulated glider vehicles would increase 
emissions by approximately 300,000 tons annually in 2025. The

[[Page 68418]]

commenter notes that even though EPA never finalized the Proposed 
Repeal of the Glider Rule, EPA's enforcement office issued a memorandum 
on July 6, 2018, stating that it would not enforce the Glider Rule. The 
commenter states that although this ``no action assurance'' is being 
challenged in court and has been temporarily stayed, ``EPA's non-
enforcement efforts underline the unreasonableness of relying on the 
emissions reductions from this rule as a basis for concluding that 
Marginal nonattainment areas will attain the 2015 NAAQS by 2021.'' The 
commenter also asserts that EPA's recent actions ``weakening'' the 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles 
and EPA's recent proposal to withdraw the Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTGs) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry call into question the 
accuracy of EPA's 2023 modeling, and that ``each deregulatory action . 
. . demonstrates the arbitrariness of EPA's assumption that Marginal 
nonattainment areas will comply with the 2015 NAAQS by 2021 without 
additional ozone-precursor pollution reductions from southeastern 
upwind states.''
    Response 3: As an initial matter, the updated 2023 modeling used to 
interpolate 2021 contributions that was relied on did not make 
different regulatory assumptions than the previous 2023 modeling 
released with the March 2018 memorandum regarding the Glider Rule and 
the light-duty CAFE standards, so the comment is relevant to the 
updated modeling as presented in the SNPRM. However, EPA disagrees that 
EPA's updated air quality modeling did not properly account for 
expected changes in projected emissions that would result from changes 
to federal programs. The mobile source and non-EGU emissions 
inventories in both the previous and updated modeling do not reflect 
changes in emissions resulting from rulemakings finalized in calendar 
year 2016 or later, nor do they reflect any rules proposed but not yet 
finalized since 2016, as only finalized rules are reflected in modeling 
inventories. This reflects EPA's normal practice to only include 
changes in emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling 
because, until such rules are finalized, any potential changes in 
NOX or VOC emissions are speculative.
    EPA did not finalize the Proposed Repeal of the Glider Rule. EPA 
announced in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's Spring 2020 
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan that ``EPA is no longer pursuing 
this action, and the emission standards and other requirements for 
heavy-duty glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits will remain 
in place as published in the `Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 
Phase 2' final rule on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 73478).'' \19\ 
Additionally, EPA withdrew the conditional no action assurance for 
small manufacturers of glider vehicles in a memorandum dated July 26, 
2018.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202004&RIN=2060-AT79 (last accessed October 
10, 2021).
    \20\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/memo_re_withdrawal_of_conditional_naa_regarding_small_manufacturers_of_glider_vehicles_07-26-2018.pdf (last accessed October 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not finalize the proposed withdrawal of the CTGs for oil 
and natural gas sources. On March 9, 2018, for reasons explained in the 
Federal Register (83 FR 10478), EPA proposed to withdraw the 2016 CTG 
for the oil and natural gas industry. However, EPA did not finalize the 
proposal to withdraw the CTG. EPA announced in the U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget's Spring 2020 Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan 
that ``the CTG will remain in place as published on October 27, 2016 
(81 FR 74798).'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202004&RIN=2060-AT76 (last accessed October 
10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have 
finalized the revisions to the greenhouse gas (GHG) and CAFE standards 
for light duty vehicles.\22\ However, that final action is not expected 
to have a meaningful impact on 2021 ozone-precursor emissions. Because 
the vehicles affected by the 2017-2025 GHG standards would still need 
to meet applicable criteria pollutant emissions standards (e.g., the 
Tier 3 emissions standards; see 79 FR 23414), the SAFE Vehicles Rule 
anticipated that any impacts of the SAFE Vehicles Rule on ozone 
precursor emissions ``would most likely be far too small to observe.'' 
See 85 FR 25041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule 
for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,'' 85 FR 
24174 (April 30, 2020) (SAFE Vehicles Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: Two commenters disagree with EPA guidance that a 1 ppb 
contribution threshold is acceptable to determine whether an upwind 
contribution is significant, stating it is arbitrary and capricious. 
One commenter also asserts that allowing different states contributing 
to a collective problem to use different air quality threshold rates to 
avoid regulation is inequitable. The commenters refer to EPA's August 
31, 2018 memorandum from Peter Tsirigotis, titled ``Analysis of 
Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air At Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan 
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' 
(``August 2018 memorandum''),\23\ and generally contend that the August 
2018 memorandum provides an insufficient evaluation regarding the 
result of such approach on downwind states' ability to attain and 
maintain the relevant NAAQS and shifts the responsibility for upwind 
pollution from upwind to downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/contrib_thresholds_transport_sip_subm_2015_ozone_memo_08_31_18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 4: As the commenters correctly note, the August 2018 
memorandum suggested that states could potentially justify the use of 
an alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb with respect to the 2015 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in step 2 of EPA's four-step interstate framework 
under the Good Neighbor provision. However, EPA is not making a 
determination in this final action to approve a state's use of an 
alternative 1 ppb threshold. Neither EPA's NPRM, SNRPM, nor this final 
action rely on a 1 ppb threshold and are instead based on a finding 
that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not 
contribute at or above one percent of the level of the NAAQS at any 
projected nonattainment or maintenance receptor based on EPA modeling. 
The use of the one percent threshold is consistent with all of EPA's 
ozone transport actions since the promulgation of the original CSAPR in 
2011. For the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, where the impacts of a state's 
emissions on all out of state receptors are below a one percent of the 
NAAQS threshold, no further analysis is required to determine that that 
state is not contributing to an out of state air quality problem under 
the Good Neighbor provision. Therefore, there is no need to evaluate 
any potential higher contribution threshold, as discussed in the August 
2018 memorandum, in the present final action.
    Comment 5: A commenter states that ozone exposure has significant 
health impacts, particularly for the respiratory system. The commenter 
cites the 2013 EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 
Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report) and several other health studies 
in order to describe numerous health impacts associated with ozone 
exposure in detail.
    Response 5: EPA agrees that ozone has a number of adverse health 
impacts.

[[Page 68419]]

See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 
65292 (October 26, 2015).\24\ EPA evaluates air quality criteria and 
impacts to public health and welfare as part of the comprehensive 
standard setting process. Id. EPA's final rule revising the primary and 
secondary ozone NAAQS includes a thorough explanation of human exposure 
and health risk assessments conducted in support of the Agency's review 
of evidence of ambient ozone exposures on human health effects, as well 
as detailed rationales for the Administrator's decisions on both 
standards. See 80 FR 65292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See also National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 
Final Rule for the 2008 NAAQS, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008), 16440, 
16450-51, 16470-71 & n.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter does not explain how the information they provided 
regarding health impacts from ambient ozone exposure should influence 
EPA's action on the Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South 
Carolina Good Neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
and EPA considers such comments to be outside of the scope of this 
action. As stated previously, EPA's evaluation of air quality criteria 
and impacts to public health and welfare are part of the standard 
setting process, rather than a step completed through actions on 
individual SIP submissions that address Good Neighbor interstate 
transport infrastructure SIP requirements pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's evaluation of individual SIP revisions is 
limited to determining whether the statutory criteria for 
implementation and attainment of the NAAQS and other CAA requirements, 
as applicable, have been satisfied. See CAA section 110(k)(2), (3).
    Comment 6: EPA received one supportive set of comments on the 
December 30, 2019, NPRM. The comments support EPA's application of the 
4-step process, and state that EPA correctly concluded that none of the 
states in EPA's December 30, 2019, NPRM contributed above 1 percent to 
downwind receptors. Commenters also expressed support for flexibility 
in addressing the Good Neighbor SIPs.
    Response 6: EPA agrees with commenter that it appropriately applied 
steps 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate transport framework (which 
the commenter refers to as the 4-step process), and that, according to 
EPA's analysis, neither Florida, Georgia, North Carolina nor South 
Carolina contribute above one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 
any downwind state. With respect to the portion of the comment 
regarding retaining the ability for states to take different approaches 
to analyzing and addressing their Good Neighbor obligations, EPA's use 
of certain analytic methods in this action (such as the use of a one 
percent of NAAQS contribution threshold or the definition of 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors) does not in itself necessarily 
preclude different approaches to Good Neighbor analysis in other 
contexts, where EPA determines to be appropriate and consistent with 
legal requirements and governing case law.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Florida, Georgia, 
North Carolina, and South Carolina SIPs. EPA finds that emissions from 
sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will 
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, 
EPA is approving the interstate transport portions of the 
infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 
and South Carolina, separately, as meeting CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely 
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that 
reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, the Good 
Neighbor SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land 
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that 
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule 
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    For South Carolina, because this final action merely approves state 
law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action for the 
state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, 
this final action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 
governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation 
Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South 
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. 
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``[a]ll state and local 
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation 
and] Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and 
local agencies and authorities.'' The Catawba Indian Nation also 
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental 
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local 
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.

[[Page 68420]]

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 31, 2022. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

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.

    Dated: November 26, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. In Sec.  52.520(e), amend the table by adding a new entry for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date               notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure         9/18/2018       12/2/2021  [Insert citation of    Addressing Prongs 1
 Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour                                    publication].          and 2 of section
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                               110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                            only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart L--Georgia

0
3. In Sec.  52.570(e) amend the table by adding a new entry for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic   submittal date/  EPA approval date      Explanation
           provision              or nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)                Georgia................       9/24/2018  12/2/2021, [Insert  Addressing Prongs
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               citation of         1 and 2 of
 for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone                                                 publication].       section
 NAAQS.                                                                                        110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                               ) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
4. In Sec.  52.1770(e), amend the table by adding a new entry for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date              citation             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure         9/27/2018       12/2/2021  [Insert citation of    Addressing Prongs 1
 Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour                                    publication].          and 2 of section
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                               110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                            only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68421]]

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
5. In Sec.  52.2120(e), amend the table by adding a new entry for 
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               State
                Provision                 effective date       EPA approval date              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure                9/7/2018  12/2/2021, [Insert          Addressing Prongs 1 and 2
 Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone                    citation of publication].   of section
 NAAQS.                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-26144 Filed 12-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P