Proposed Rule2021-15097
Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 19, 2021
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking ("supplemental proposal" or "SNPRM"), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supplementing its proposed approval of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina (four Southeastern States), addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). Specifically, EPA is proposing to rely on updated analysis using a 2021 analytic year to support the proposed finding that each state's implementation plan contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37942-37948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-8697-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1
and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(``supplemental proposal'' or ``SNPRM''), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is supplementing its proposed approval of state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina (four Southeastern States), addressing the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). Specifically, EPA is proposing to rely on updated analysis
using a 2021 analytic year to support the proposed finding that each
state's implementation plan contains adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0156, at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on
[[Page 37943]]
making effective comments, please visit <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5534313438267b3023343b153025347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234247424e500d4655424d634653420d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background for This Supplemental Proposal
On December 30, 2019, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from
six Southeast States (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee) \1\ as meeting the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or the Good Neighbor
provision, for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 71854. Refer to
the December 30, 2019, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an
explanation of the CAA requirements, the four-step framework that EPA
applies under the Good Neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS, a detailed
summary of the state submissions, and EPA's proposed rationale for
approval. See 84 FR 71854. The public comment period for the December
30, 2019, NPRM closed on January 29, 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 intended to become a final rule upon
publication in the Federal Register. However, the March 24, 2020
document was never published in the Federal Register. Further, on
January 19, 2021, former EPA Region 4 Administrator Mary Walker
signed a document (hereinafter referred to as the January 19, 2021
document), which EPA posted to its website at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015-8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements">https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/epas-approval-2015-8-hour-ozone-interstate-transport-requirements</a>. EPA noted in that posting
``Notwithstanding the fact that the EPA is posting a pre-publication
version, the final rule will not be promulgated until published in
the Federal Register.'' EPA will not publish either the March 24,
2020 document or the January 19, 2021 document in the Federal
Register; therefore, neither document will result in a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the December 30, 2019, proposal, two events occurred
which have caused EPA to adjust its analysis of the aforementioned SIP
submissions, and consequently, to issue this supplemental proposal.
First, on May 19, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its ruling in
Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Maryland). That case
involved EPA's denial of administrative petitions filed by the states
of Maryland and Delaware under CAA section 126(b), seeking to have EPA
impose emissions limits on sources in upwind states alleged to be
emitting in violation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court held
that EPA must address Good Neighbor obligations consistent with the
2021 attainment date for downwind areas classified as being in Marginal
nonattainment under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, ``not at some later
date.'' 958 F.3d at 1203-04 (citing Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 314
(D.C. Cir. 2019) (Wisconsin)). The court disagreed with EPA that use of
a 2023 analytic year, consistent with the 2024 attainment date for
areas classified as being in Moderate nonattainment, was a proper
reading of the court's earlier decision in Wisconsin. Id. at 1204. In
light of the Maryland decision, EPA is evaluating these states' Good
Neighbor obligations using a 2021 analytic year, corresponding to the
2021 Marginal area attainment date under the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Second, on October 30, 2020, EPA released and accepted public
comment on updated 2023 modeling that used the 2016 emissions platform
developed under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\3\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the
final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update using the
same modeling that was made publicly available in the proposed
rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update.\4\ Although that modeling
focused on the year 2023, EPA conducted an ``interpolation'' analysis
of these modeling results to generate air quality and contribution
values for the 2021 analytic year, consistent with the Maryland
holding, as the relevant analytic year for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also Emissions
Modeling TSD titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the
2016v1 North American Emissions Modeling Platform.'' This TSD is
available in the docket for this proposed action and at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v1-platform">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2016v1-platform</a>. The underlying
modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket office for
public review. See the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this supplemental
proposal the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data Drives_Final
RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to access the
modeling files.
\4\ See 86 FR 23054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new modeling and analysis now provides the primary basis for
EPA's proposed approval of the Good Neighbor SIP submissions for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. By relying on the
updated modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. As explained in greater detail in this supplemental
proposal, this new analysis indicates that in 2021, these four states
are not projected to impact any downwind states at or above a
contribution threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
which is equivalent to 0.70 parts per billion (ppb). Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve these four states' submissions.
Additionally, EPA previously proposed to approve infrastructure SIP
elements submitted to fulfill the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by the states of Alabama and Tennessee
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the December 30, 2019, NPRM
referenced above. This supplemental proposal does not address these
submissions, and EPA is deferring action on the referenced SIP
submissions from Alabama and Tennessee at this time.
II. EPA's Analysis
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued the Maryland decision that
cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess the impact
of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind attainment
date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in evaluating the basis
for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 126(b). See 958 F.3d
1185, 1203-04. The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the
Good Neighbor Provision,'' and therefore ``the EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment
deadline. Therefore, EPA must evaluate downwind air quality at that
deadline, not at some later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA
interprets the court's holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency,
under the Good Neighbor provision, to address Good Neighbor obligations
by the next applicable attainment date for downwind areas, including a
Marginal
[[Page 37944]]
area attainment date under CAA section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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 this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marginal area attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021.\6\ See CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR
25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018). Historically, EPA has
considered the last full ozone season prior to the attainment date as
supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing Good Neighbor
obligations. See, e.g., 81 FR 74540. While this would be 2020 for an
August 2021 attainment date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season
running from May 1 to September 30), in this circumstance, when the
2020 ozone season is wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 to address Good Neighbor obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to
select an analytic year that is wholly in the past because EPA
interprets the Good Neighbor provision as forward looking. See 85 FR
68964, 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, as
discussed further below, EPA is using the analytic year of 2021 in this
supplemental proposal to evaluate Good Neighbor obligations for
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina with respect to
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The December 30, 2019, NPRM incorrectly referred to the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS Marginal attainment date as August 2, 2021, and
the Moderate attainment date as August 2, 2024. See 84 FR 71857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 30, 2019, NPRM proposing approval of the 2015 8-hour
ozone Good Neighbor SIPs for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina predates the D.C. Circuit's decision in Maryland. This
decision also came after the close of the public comment period on the
December 30, 2019, NPRM. However, this decision bears directly on EPA's
action and its consideration of the comments received on the December
30, 2019, NPRM. As discussed above and in accordance with the Wisconsin
and Maryland decisions, the Agency considers 2021 to be the relevant
analytic year for the purpose of determining whether sources in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other states.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina Good Neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS are approvable using a 2021 analytic year. The SIP
submissions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
rely on analysis of the year 2023 to show that they do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. However, given the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, analysis of that year is no longer
sufficient where the next attainment date for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is in 2021.\7\ Nonetheless, the analysis EPA has conducted for
the 2021 analytic year corroborates the conclusion reached in each
state's submission and in the December 30, 2019, NPRM. In accordance
with the holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's supplemental
analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant attainment year for evaluating
Good Neighbor obligations for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina with respect to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS using the
same four-step interstate transport framework described in the proposal
of this action. See 84 FR 71855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA recognizes that Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina as well as other states may have been influenced by
EPA's 2018 guidance memoranda (issued prior to the Wisconsin and
Maryland decisions) in making Good Neighbor submissions that relied
on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are intervening changes in
relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA requirements, states are
generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or re-submit their SIP
submissions with new analysis (in compliance with CAA procedures for
SIP submissions). While Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina have not done this, as explained in this section, EPA's
proposed independent analysis concludes that the states' submissions
in this instance are approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In step 1, EPA identifies locations where the Agency expects there
to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS based on analysis of ozone concentrations at individual
monitoring sites in the appropriate analytic year. Where EPA's analysis
shows that a monitoring site does not fall under the definition of a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor in the analytic year, that site
is excluded from further analysis under EPA's four-step interstate
transport framework.\8\ For monitoring sites that are identified as
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the appropriate analytic
year, EPA proceeds to step 2 of the four-step interstate transport
framework by identifying whether emissions in upwind states contribute
to those receptors in amounts that exceed a contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ While EPA has focused its analysis in this notice on the
year 2021, the Revised CSAPR Update modeling data in years 2023 and
2028 confirm that no new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for these states in later years. EPA notes this is
consistent with an overall, long-term downward trend in emissions
from these states. See Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054; see also
Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the final
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in the
docket for this proposed action and at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update">https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update</a>. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
proposed action titled ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions for
the Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this supplemental proposal is consistent with the approach
described in the December 30, 2019, NPRM, and is the same approach used
in previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-911 (2008) (holding that EPA
must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
For the purpose of this supplemental proposal, EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to
have average design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design
values. This approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings,
such as CSAPR Update, where EPA defined nonattainment receptors as
those areas that both currently monitor nonattainment and that EPA
projects will be in nonattainment in the future compliance year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The Revised CSAPR Update
also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR
25241 (January 14, 2005). See also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
914 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in this supplemental proposal, EPA identifies a
receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining
interference with maintenance, consistent with the method used in CSAPR
and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
[[Page 37945]]
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (DC Cir. 2015).\10\
Specifically, monitoring sites with a maximum projected design value in
2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are identified as maintenance receptors in
2021. EPA's method of defining these receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable projections based on modeling
analysis.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR Update and
Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
\11\ Further, as recognized by the court in Wisconsin, 938 F.3d
at 320, nonattainment areas that do not measure an exceedance of the
level of the standard in a given year, even if not sufficient to be
redesignated to attainment based on the 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 does not
present a complete picture of the likelihood that an area will be
``reclassified'' or ``bumped-up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS, but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina relied on the
modeling included in an EPA memorandum dated March 2018 (``March 2018
memorandum''),\12\ as well as state specific ozone precursor emission
trends, design values, and regulations, to develop their SIPs as EPA
had suggested. In the December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA also relied on the
modeling results included in the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR
71855-71856, 71859-71861. However, EPA is now supplementing the
December 30, 2019, NPRM with newly available, updated modeling that was
developed using a 2016-based modeling platform prepared under the EPA/
Multi-Jurisdictional Organization/state collaborative) project.\13\ The
results of this updated modeling were released with the NPRM for the
Revised CSAPR Update on October 30, 2020, and finalized in the final
Revised CSAPR Update without changes. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
The updated modeling includes 2016 base year and 2023 projection year
model simulations that were analyzed to identify receptors and
determine interstate ozone contributions to these receptors in 2021.
Specifically, EPA developed an interpolation technique based on
modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to determine ozone design
values for 2021. To estimate average and maximum design values for
2021, EPA first performed air quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
project measured 2016 design values to 2023. The 2023 design values
were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured design values to
estimate design values in 2021. The Air Quality Modeling technical
support document (TSD) developed in connection with the Revised CSAPR
Update, which is included in the docket for this supplemental proposal,
describes the modeling and interpolation for estimating design values
in 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' March 27, 2018, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf</a> and available in the docket for this
SNPRM.
\13\ See 86 FR 23054. The results of this modeling are included
in a spreadsheet in the docket for this proposed action titled Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx. The
underlying modeling files are available on data drives in the Docket
office for public review under the docket for the Revised CSAPR
Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272). See also in the docket for this
proposed action the document titled Air Quality Modeling Data
Drives_Final RCU.pdf for a file inventory and instructions on how to
access the modeling files.
\14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' available in
the docket for this supplemental proposal and at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update">https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update</a>.
This TSD was originally developed to support EPA's action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding Good Neighbor
obligations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. While developed in
this separate context, the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect
to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS and used in support of this
supplemental proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis for this supplemental proposal, supported by the
modeling analysis completed in the Revised CSAPR Update, further
substantiates EPA's proposed approval in the December 30, 2019, NPRM.
To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, EPA first performed nationwide, state-level
ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in each state, individually. The modeled 2023
contributions were then applied in a relative sense to the 2021 average
design value to estimate the contributions in 2021 from each state to
each receptor. Details on the source apportionment modeling and the
methods for determining contributions in 2021 are in the Air Quality
Modeling TSD in the docket.
The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina contribute at
or above the threshold of one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor.\15\
Table 1 presents the highest contribution in 2021 from Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to a downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This supplemental proposal relies on the same contribution
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS proposed in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. See 85 FR 68964.
Table 1--Maximum Contribution From Each State to Downwind Nonattainment or Maintenance-Only Receptors in 2021
\16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Downwind receptor
State contribution ------------------------------------------------------------
(ppb) County State AQS ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida............................ 0.34 Galveston............. TX 481671034
Georgia............................ 0.39 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
North Carolina..................... 0.69 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
[[Page 37946]]
South Carolina..................... 0.25 Fairfield............. CT 90011123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the analysis of the updated modeling as described above,
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable to conclude that Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, individually, will not
contribute greater than one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to
any potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See data file titled Ozone Design Values and Contributions
Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx in the docket for this SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to support the findings
from the air quality analysis. In evaluating emissions trends, EPA
first reviewed the information submitted by Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina and then reviewed additional information
derived from EPA's National Emissions Inventory. EPA focused on state-
wide emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOCs in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina.\17\ Combined, emissions from mobile
sources, electric generating units (EGUs), industrial facilities,
gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are a large percentage of
anthropogenic emissions of ozone precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 81 FR 74504, 74513-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, from 2011 to 2023 annual total NO<INF>X</INF>
and VOC emissions are projected to decline in the following amounts,
respectively: By 56 percent and 35 percent in Florida; by 57 percent
and 27 percent in Georgia; by 53 percent and 18 percent in North
Carolina; and by 47 percent and 24 percent in South Carolina. The
projected reductions are a result of the implementation of existing
control programs that will continue to decrease NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
emissions in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, as
indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected emissions used
in the updated 2023 modeling.
Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
[Tons per year]18, 19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX.................................. 585,605 569,789 553,974 538,158 487,946 411,085 398,245 346,680 312,677 276,138 249,391
FL VOC.................................. 637,315 598,992 560,669 522,345 506,276 473,769 454,694 442,470 430,246 419,961 411,321
GA NOX.................................. 412,070 385,178 358,287 331,395 314,900 288,421 274,956 255,975 232,538 202,406 177,951
GA VOC.................................. 338,259 325,680 313,101 300,523 306,404 290,702 286,047 276,886 267,724 244,549 240,387
NC NOX.................................. 365,550 345,513 325,477 305,441 281,599 242,797 229,047 214,574 198,442 181,669 169,258
NC VOC \20\............................. 328,942 321,229 313,516 305,803 294,299 272,534 265,404 262,394 259,385 269,915 267,208
SC NOX.................................. 205,952 194,924 183,896 172,868 160,064 157,222 148,786 139,694 128,656 114,238 107,420
SC VOC.................................. 183,937 178,844 173,750 168,656 164,822 160,869 158,476 153,877 149,279 143,119 140,107
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019 in Tables 2 and 3 were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data">https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data</a>. Emissions from miscellaneous sources are not included in the state totals
presented in Table 2. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See ``2005 thru 2019.2021_2023_2028 Annual
State Tier1 Emissions_v3'' and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this proposed action.
\19\ Note that the methods used for calculating emissions for certain tier 1 categories in the NEI changed over time between 2005 and 2019 and certain
methods used for the NEI differ from the methods used for the 2016 Emissions Platform. These methodological differences may result in some year-to-
year inconsistencies in the emissions trends and the projected emissions trends.
\20\ EPA notes that for North Carolina, the projected VOC emissions are greater than historical emissions in recent years according to NEI data.
However, EPA also notes that NOx emissions are the primary contributor to regional ozone formation in ozone transport, and for North Carolina, NOx
emissions are projected to continue to decline. As a result of these NOx emissions reductions, North Carolina is projected to contribute below the one
percent threshold in 2021 to projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and is projected to continue to contribute below one percent in 2023
and 2028, despite the greater projected VOC emissions. Projected ozone design values and contributions data for 2021, 2023, and 2028 can be found in
the file ``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'' in the docket for this action.
As presented below in Table 3, onroad and nonroad mobile source
emissions collectively (i.e., mobile source emissions) comprise a large
portion of these states' total anthropogenic NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC
(i.e., 67 percent of the state total NO<INF>X</INF> and 36 percent to
state total VOC for Florida; 61 percent of the state total
NO<INF>X</INF> and 30 percent to state total VOC for Georgia; 57
percent of the state total NO<INF>X</INF> and 31 percent to state total
VOC for North Carolina; and 57 percent of the state total
NO<INF>X</INF> and 31 percent to state total VOC for South Carolina).
Table 3--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL NOX.................................. 468,496 451,186 433,876 416,565 373,961 304,708 299,476 271,122 242,768 184,676 165,897
[[Page 37947]]
FL VOC.................................. 351,631 325,059 298,486 271,914 255,262 222,173 202,502 190,278 178,054 155,760 145,133
GA NOX.................................. 297,838 276,697 255,555 234,413 225,072 205,747 199,437 180,291 161,144 122,097 108,363
GA VOC.................................. 171,049 157,722 144,394 131,067 134,296 115,940 108,633 99,471 90,309 72,285 67,187
NC NOX.................................. 272,542 253,619 234,697 215,775 197,948 165,162 157,428 145,004 132,580 107,114 95,139
NC VOC.................................. 176,370 162,257 148,144 134,032 124,615 104,938 99,959 96,950 93,940 88,486 81,551
SC NOX.................................. 144,953 137,401 129,850 122,298 111,751 111,167 104,989 95,687 86,385 68,365 61,243
SC VOC.................................. 86,955 82,634 78,312 73,991 70,288 66,464 64,202 59,603 55,005 46,372 42,789
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Hazardous
Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007); Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad
Diesel Engines and Fuel (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004); Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008); Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (75 FR 22895, April 30,
2010); Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Emission Standards and Test Procedures (77 FR 36342, June 18, 2012).
The large decrease in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina are primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from onroad and nonroad mobile sources. As shown by the
mobile source emissions trends in Table 3, EPA projects that both VOC
and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions will continue declining out to 2023 as
newer vehicles and engines that are subject to the most recent,
stringent mobile source standards replace older vehicles and
engines.\21\
In summary, based on the projected downward trend in projected
future emissions trends, in combination with the historical decline in
actual emissions, there is no evidence to suggest that the overall
emissions trend demonstrated in Table 2 would suddenly reverse or spike
in 2021 compared to historical emissions levels or those projected for
2023. Further, there is no evidence that the projected ozone precursor
emissions trends beyond 2021would not continue to show a decline in
emissions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA's normal practice is to only include changes in
emissions from final regulatory actions in its modeling because,
until such rules are finalized, any potential changes in
NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC emissions are speculative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This downward trend in emissions in Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina adds support to the air quality analysis
presented above and indicates that the contributions from emissions
from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to
ozone receptors in downwind states will continue to decline and remain
below one percent of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, based on this
supplemental analysis, EPA continues to propose to conclude that the
air quality and emissions analyses indicate that emissions from
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
III. Supplemental Proposed Actions
In its December 30, 2019, NPRM, EPA originally proposed to find
that emissions from sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state based on information for the analytic year 2023, consistent with
the 2024 Moderate area attainment date. Thus, EPA proposed to approve
the interstate transport portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions
from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\23\ See 84 FR 71854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As mentioned in Section I above, EPA is deferring action on
Alabama's and Tennessee's Good Neighbor infrastructure SIP
submittals at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis presented in this notice provides a new primary basis
for approval to supplement EPA's proposed finding in the December 30,
2019, NPRM. EPA continues to propose to find that emissions from
sources in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus,
EPA continues to propose to approve the interstate transport portions
of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these proposed actions:
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
<bullet> Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National
[[Page 37948]]
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
<bullet> Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
For South Carolina, because this proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law, this action
for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120 (Settlement Act), ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' The Catawba Indian Nation also
retains authority to impose regulations applying higher environmental
standards to the Reservation than those imposed by state law or local
governing bodies, in accordance with the Settlement Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
Dated: July 12, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-15097 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 19, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.