Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements

CourtEnvironmental Protection Agency
Citation86 FR 48357
Record Number2021-18516
Publication Date30 Aug 2021
48357
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
anchorage is 750 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 250 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 1,000 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
(7) Magnolia Anchorage. An area, 2.2
miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 45.4 to mile 47.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
700 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 400 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 1,100 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
* * * * *
(9) Davant Anchorage. An area, 1.4
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 52.5 to mile 53.9 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
800 feet.
* * * * *
(11) Wills Point Anchorage. An area,
1.1 miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 66.5 to mile 67.6 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 200 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 700 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
(12) Cedar Grove Anchorage. An area,
1.34 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 69.56 to mile 70.9 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 200 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 700 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(12): Jesuit Bend
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(13) Belle Chasse Anchorage. An area,
2.15 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 73.05 to mile 75.2 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 375 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 875 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
(14) Lower 12 Mile Point Anchorage.
An area, 2.2 miles in length, along the
right descending bank of the river
extending from mile 78.6 to mile 80.8
Above Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 500 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 300 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
Note 1 to paragraph (a)(14): English Turn
Revetment extends/runs adjacent to the
lower portion of this anchorage. Mariners are
urged to use caution in this anchorage.
(15) Lower 9 Mile Anchorage. An area,
2.4 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 82.6 to mile 85.0 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 300 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 800 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
* * * * *
(35) Point Michel Anchorage. An area,
2.2 miles in length, along the right
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 40.0 to mile 42.2 Above Head
of Passes. The width of the anchorage is
500 feet. The inner boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 325 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP. The outer boundary of the
anchorage is a line parallel to the
nearest bank 825 feet from the water’s
edge into the river as measured from the
LWRP.
* * * * *
(37) Phoenix Anchorage. An area, 0.6
miles in length, along the left
descending bank of the river extending
from mile 57.82 to mile 58.42 Above
Head of Passes. The width of the
anchorage is 400 feet. The inner
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 400 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP. The outer
boundary of the anchorage is a line
parallel to the nearest bank 800 feet
from the water’s edge into the river as
measured from the LWRP.
* * * * *
Dated: August 19, 2021.
Richard V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Coast Guard District Eight.
[FR Doc. 2021–18467 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2021–0353; FRL–8916–01–
R1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015
Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
AGENCY
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires each State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will have
certain adverse air quality effects in
other states. The State of Connecticut
made a submission to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these requirements for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is
proposing to approve the submission as
meeting the requirement that each SIP
contain adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state.
DATES
: Written comments must be
received on or before September 29,
2021.
ADDRESSES
: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OAR–2021–0353 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
simcox.alison@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48358
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
1
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in parts per billion (ppb). For example,
0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 ppb.
2
SIP revisions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure
SIPs and the applicable elements under section
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
3
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
911 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
4
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
5
In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed
to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin v.
EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
6
The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021), was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded
to the remand of the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016), and the vacatur of a separate
rule, the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (December
21, 2018), by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA,
938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781
F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
7
In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other
regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NO
X
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27,
1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
8
See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
9
82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
10
See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the
docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/
interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-
pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID–19.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code 05–2), Boston, MA
02109—3912, telephone number: (617)
918–1684, email address:
simcox.alison@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Connecticut Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated
a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015
ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of
both the primary and secondary
standards to 0.070 parts per million
(ppm).
1
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2).
2
One of these applicable
requirements is found in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which
generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain
adverse air quality effects on other states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
There are two so-called ‘‘prongs’’ within
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for
a new or revised NAAQS must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the state from emitting
air pollutants in amounts that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1), or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). EPA and states must give
independent significance to prong 1 and
prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
3
We note that EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to prior ozone NAAQS in
several regional regulatory actions,
including the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which addressed
interstate transport with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards,
4
the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most
recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
56
Through the development and
implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the
good neighbor provision,
7
EPA, working
in partnership with states, developed
the following four-step interstate
transport framework to address the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1)
Identify downwind air quality
problems; (2) identify upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality
problems sufficiently such that they are
considered ‘‘linked’’ and therefore
warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), applying a multi-
factor analysis, to prevent linked
upwind states identified in step 2 from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
EPA has released several documents
containing information relevant to
evaluating interstate transport with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First,
on January 6, 2017, EPA published a
notice of data availability (NODA) with
preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design
values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform, on which we requested
public comment.
8
In the NODA, EPA
used the year 2023 as the analytic year
for this preliminary modeling because
that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
9
On October 27, 2017, we
released a memorandum (2017 memo)
containing updated modeling data for
2023, which incorporated changes made
in response to comments on the NODA,
and noted that the modeling may be
useful for states developing SIPs to
address good neighbor obligations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
10
On March 27,
2018, we issued a memorandum (March
2018 memo) noting that the same 2023
modeling data released in the 2017
memo could also be useful for
identifying potential downwind air
quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48359
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
11
See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (‘‘August
2018 memo’’), and Considerations for Identifying
Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
October 19, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-
and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-
transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
12
See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the
docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public review in the docket
for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2020–0272).
13
See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30,
2021).
14
See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule Update,’’ 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021),
available in the docket for this action. This TSD was
originally developed to support EPA’s action in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding
good neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. While developed in this separate context,
the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be
evaluated with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and used in support of this proposal.
15
We note that the court in Maryland did not
have occasion to evaluate circumstances in which
EPA may determine that an upwind linkage to a
downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and
2 of the interstate transport framework by a
particular attainment date, but for reasons of
impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency is
unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by
that date. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C.
Circuit noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient
showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good
neighbor provision. Such circumstances are not at
issue in the present proposal.
16
CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303;
Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 83
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
four-step interstate transport framework.
The March 2018 memo also included
the then newly available contribution
modeling results to assist states in
evaluating their impact on potential
downwind air quality problems for the
2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the
interstate transport framework. EPA
subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October
2018, providing additional information
to states developing good neighbor SIP
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
concerning, respectively, potential
contribution thresholds that may be
appropriate to apply in step 2 of the
framework, and considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may
have problems maintaining the standard
at step 1 of the framework.
11
On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised
CSAPR Update, EPA released and
accepted public comment on updated
2023 modeling that used a 2016
emissions platform developed under the
EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project as the
primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.
12
On March
15, 2021, EPA signed the final Revised
CSAPR Update using the same modeling
released at proposal.
13
Although
Connecticut relied on the modeling
included in the March 2018 memo to
develop its SIP submission as EPA had
suggested, EPA now proposes to
primarily rely on the updated and
newly available 2016 base year
modeling in evaluating these
submissions. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most
current and technically appropriate
information as the primary basis for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA’s
independent analysis, which also
evaluated historical monitoring data,
recent DVs, and emissions trends, found
that such information provides
additional support and further
substantiates the results of the 2016 base
year modeling as the basis for this
proposed rulemaking. Section III of this
document and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this proposal
contain additional detail on this
modeling.
14
In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and
the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used a
threshold of one percent of the NAAQS
to determine whether a given upwind
state was ‘‘linked’’ at step 2 of the
interstate transport framework and
would, therefore, contribute to
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites identified in step 1. If
a state’s impact did not equal or exceed
the one percent threshold, the upwind
state was not ‘‘linked’’ to a downwind
air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a state’s
impact equaled or exceeded the one
percent threshold, the state’s emissions
were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost
considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions might be deemed
‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must be
eliminated under the good neighbor
provision. EPA is proposing to rely on
the one percent threshold (which is 0.70
ppb) for the purpose of evaluating
Connecticut’s contribution to
nonattainment or maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
Several D.C. Circuit court decisions
address the issue of the relevant analytic
year for the purposes of evaluating
ozone transport air-quality problems.
On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the CSAPR Update to the
extent that it failed to require upwind
states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with
the NAAQS, as established under CAA
section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Maryland v. EPA
that cited the Wisconsin decision in
holding that EPA must assess the impact
of interstate transport on air quality at
the next downwind attainment date,
including Marginal area attainment
dates, in evaluating the basis for EPA’s
denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185,
1203–04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court
noted that ‘‘section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,’’ and,
therefore, ‘‘EPA must find a violation [of
section 126] if an upwind source will
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind
attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air
quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.’’ Id. at 1204 (emphasis
added). EPA interprets the court’s
holding in Maryland as requiring the
Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air
quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal
area attainment date under CAA section
181 for ozone nonattainment.
15
The
Marginal area attainment date for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.
16
Historically, EPA has considered the
full ozone season prior to the attainment
date as supplying an appropriate
analytic year for assessing good
neighbor obligations. While this would
be 2020 for an August 2021 attainment
date (which falls within the 2021 ozone
season running from May 1 to
September 30), in this circumstance,
when the 2020 ozone season is wholly
in the past, it is appropriate to focus on
2021 to address good neighbor
obligations to the extent possible by the
2021 attainment date. EPA does not
believe it would be appropriate to select
an analytical year that is wholly in the
past, because the agency interprets the
good neighbor provision as forward
looking. See 86 FR 23054 at 23074; see
also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
Consequently, in this proposal EPA will
use the analytical year of 2021 to
evaluate Connecticut’s good neighbor
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48360
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
17
EPA recognizes that by the time final action is
taken with respect to this SIP submission, the 2021
ozone season will be wholly in the past. As
discussed below, the available modeling
information indicates that our analysis would not
change even using 2023 as the analytic year. The
2023 modeling results are included in the ‘‘Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx’’, included in the docket for this action.
18
EPA notes that the monitoring site ID for
Suffolk County, New York is 361030002.
19
EPA notes that the $1,400 ton per year
threshold stated by Connecticut is in reference to
the cost per ton threshold used in the CSAPR
Update, which was used to evaluate available cost-
effective EGU controls under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. See 81 FR 74504 (October
26, 2016).
20
We recognize that Connecticut and other states
may have been influenced by EPA’s 2018 guidance
memos (issued prior to the Wisconsin and Maryland
decisions) in making good neighbor submissions
that relied on EPA’s modeling of 2023. When there
are intervening changes in relevant law or legal
interpretation of CAA requirements, states are
generally free to withdraw, supplement, and/or re-
submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP
submissions). While Connecticut has not done this,
as explained in this section, the independent
analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion
confirms that the state’s submission in this instance
is ultimately approvable.
21
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910–
11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA must give
‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
22
See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 86 FR
23054 (April 30, 2021). This same concept, relying
on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in
CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005); see also
North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–14 (affirming as
reasonable EPA’s approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
23
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and
86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
obligation with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
17
II. Connecticut Submittal
On December 6, 2018, Connecticut
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Connecticut relied on
the results of EPA’s modeling for the
2015 ozone NAAQS contained in the
March 2018 memo to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
Connecticut in the year 2023. These
results indicate Connecticut’s greatest
impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.83 ppb in Suffolk County,
New York.
18
Based on the March 2018
memo, this was the only nonattainment
or maintenance receptor for which
Connecticut was projected in 2023 to
contribute above the screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb (one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
Connecticut noted in its December
2018 good neighbor submittal that ‘‘EPA
had considered cost-effective only
reductions that are available at a cost of
less than $1,400 per ton of emissions
reduced. Connecticut’s emitters are
currently required to adopt control
measures at costs exceeding $13,000 per
ton (of NO
X
).’’
19
Connecticut states that
as it requires this high level of control
of ozone precursor emissions, it has
exhausted lower-cost emission
reduction measures.
As evidence of this, Connecticut
points to Regulations of Connecticut
Agencies section 22a–174–22e(g) and its
ozone attainment plan technical support
document for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
which was submitted to EPA in August
2017 and documents the State’s ozone
precursor emission reduction measures.
Connecticut concludes that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS because of the
existing control measures that are in
place.
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut’s
Submittal
Connecticut’s SIP submission relies
on analysis of the year 2023 to show
whether it contributes to nonattainment
or interferes with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
20
As explained in Section I of this
proposal, EPA has conducted an
updated analysis for the 2021 analytical
year that is being used to evaluate
Connecticut’s transport SIP submittal.
Significantly, this new analysis shows
that, in 2021, Connecticut is not
projected to contribute to any potential
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, including the
monitor in Suffolk County, New York,
above the screening threshold of 0.70
ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS). While EPA has focused its
analysis in this document on the year
2021, modeling data in the record for
years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no
new linkages to downwind receptors are
projected for Connecticut in later years.
This is not surprising as it is consistent
with an overall, long-term downward
trend in emissions from this state.
As explained in Section I of this
document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland,
EPA’s analysis relies on 2021 as the
relevant attainment year for evaluating
Connecticut’s good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS
using the four-step interstate transport
framework. In step 1, we identify
locations where the Agency expects
there to be nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic
year. Where EPA’s analysis shows that
an area or site does not fall under the
definition of a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, that site is
excluded from further analysis under
EPA’s four step interstate transport
framework. For areas that are identified
as a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next
step of our four-step framework by
identifying the upwind state’s
contribution to those receptors.
EPA’s approach to identifying ozone
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent
with the approach used in previous
transport rulemakings. EPA’s approach
gives independent consideration to both
the ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina v. EPA.
21
For the purpose of this proposal, EPA
identifies nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites that are projected
to have average design values that
exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the
most recent monitored design values.
This approach is consistent with prior
transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas
that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that EPA projects
will be in nonattainment in the future
analytic year.
22
In addition, in this proposal, EPA
identifies a receptor to be a
‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes of
defining interference with maintenance,
consistent with the method used in the
CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit
in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 (D.C. Cir.
2015).
23
Specifically, monitoring sites
with a projected maximum design value
in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors.
EPA’s method of defining these
receptors takes into account both
measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
Recognizing that nonattainment
receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses
the term ‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to
receptors that are not also
nonattainment receptors. Consistent
with the methodology described above,
monitoring sites with a projected
maximum design value that exceeds the
NAAQS, but with a projected average
design value that is below the NAAQS,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48361
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
24
See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results
of this modeling are included in a spreadsheet in
the docket for this action. The underlying modeling
files are available for public access in the docket for
the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–
0272).
25
The data are given in the ‘‘Air Quality
Modeling Technical Support Document for the
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update’’ and
‘‘Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised
CSAPR Update.xlsx,’’ which are included in the
docket for this action.
26
This is because ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air but is formed by
chemical reactions between ozone precursors,
chiefly NO
X
and VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
See 86 FR 23054, 23063.
27
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR 8428,
February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001); Clean
Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29,
2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098,
May 6, 2008); Marine Spark-Ignition and Small
Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR 59034, October
8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR
22895, April 30, 2010); and Aircraft and Aircraft
Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342, June 18,
2012).
are identified as maintenance-only
receptors. In addition, those sites that
are currently measuring ozone
concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS but are projected to
be nonattainment based on the average
design value and that, by definition, are
projected to have a maximum design
value above the standard are also
identified as maintenance-only
receptors.
To evaluate future air quality in steps
1 and 2 of the interstate transport
framework, EPA is using the 2016 and
2023 base case emissions developed
under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative
emissions modeling platform project as
the primary source for base year and
2023 future year emissions data for this
proposal.
24
Because this platform does
not include emissions for 2021, EPA
developed an interpolation technique
based on modeling for 2023 and
measured ozone data to determine
ozone concentrations for 2021. To
estimate average and maximum design
values for 2021, EPA first performed air
quality modeling for 2016 and 2023 to
obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with
the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values
in 2021. Details on the modeling,
including the interpolation
methodology, can be found in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD, found in the
docket for this proposal.
To quantify the contribution of
emissions from specific upwind states
on 2021 8-hour design values for the
identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, EPA first
performed nationwide, state-level ozone
source apportionment modeling for
2023. The source apportionment
modeling provided contributions to
ozone from precursor emissions of
anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NO
X
)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in each state, individually. The modeled
contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design
value to estimate the contributions in
2021 from each state to each receptor.
Details on the source apportionment
modeling and the methods for
determining contributions in 2021 are in
the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
The 2021 design values and
contributions were examined to
determine if Connecticut contributes at
or above the threshold of one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to
any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data
25
indicate that the highest contribution in
2021 from Connecticut to a downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
is 0.44 ppb to a nonattainment receptor
in Richmond County, New York
(monitoring site 360850067). The data
also show modeled ozone contributions
from Connecticut to the design values of
a larger set of monitoring sites
(independent of attainment status) and
indicate that the highest projected
contribution in 2021 from Connecticut
to any of these sites is 3.51 ppb to Kent
County in Rhode Island (monitoring site
440030002; #378 on the Design Values
and Contributions spreadsheet). While
Connecticut’s modeled contribution to
the Kent County monitor exceeds one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
EPA’s analysis at step 1 does not
identify the Kent County monitor as a
downwind area that may have problems
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The Kent County monitor’s projected
average design value in 2021 is 65.5
ppb. The updated modeling for 2021
also shows that Connecticut is no longer
projected to be linked to the Suffolk
County monitoring site, since this
monitor is no longer projected to be a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor
emissions trends in Connecticut to
support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends,
we first reviewed the information
submitted by the state and then
reviewed additional information
available to the Agency. We focused on
state-wide emissions of NO
X
and
VOCs.
26
Emissions from mobile sources,
electric generating units (‘‘EGUs’’),
industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and
chemical solvents are some of the major
anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. This evaluation looks at
both past emissions trends, as well as
projected trends.
As shown in Table 1, for Connecticut,
annual total NO
X
and VOC emissions
are projected to decline between 2016
and 2023 by 31 percent and 2 percent,
respectively. The projected reductions
are a result of the implementation of
existing control programs that will
continue to decrease NO
X
and VOC
emissions in Connecticut, as indicated
by EPA’s most recent 2021 and 2023
projected emissions.
As shown in Table 2, on-road and
nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of
Connecticut’s total anthropogenic NO
X
and VOCs. For example, in 2019, NO
X
emissions from mobile sources in
Connecticut comprised 62 percent of
total NO
X
emissions and 38 percent of
total VOC emissions.
The large decrease in NO
X
emissions
between 2016 emissions and projected
2023 emissions in Connecticut is
primarily driven by reductions in
emissions from on-road and nonroad
mobile sources. EPA projects that both
VOC and NO
X
emissions will continue
declining to 2023 as newer vehicles and
engines that are subject to the most
recent, stringent mobile source
standards replace older vehicles and
engines.
27
In summary, based on the projected
downward trend in projected future
emissions trends, in combination with
the historical decline in actual
emissions, there is no evidence to
suggest that the overall emissions trend
demonstrated in Table 2 would
suddenly reverse or spike in 2021
compared to historical emissions levels
or those projected for 2023. Further,
there is no evidence that the projected
ozone precursor emissions trends
beyond 2021 would not continue to
show a decline in emissions. In
addition, EPA followed its normal
practice of including in our modeling
only changes in NO
X
or VOC emissions
that result from final regulatory actions.
Any potential changes in NO
X
or VOC
emissions that may result from possible
future or proposed regulatory actions
are speculative.
This downward trend in emissions in
Connecticut adds support to the air
quality analyses presented above for the
state and indicates that the
contributions from emissions from
sources in Connecticut to ozone
receptors in downwind states will
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
48362
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
28
The annual emissions data for the years 2011
through 2019 were obtained from EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory website: https://www.epa.gov/
air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-
trends-data. Note that emissions from
miscellaneous sources are not included in the state
totals. The emissions for 2021 and 2023 are based
on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
‘‘2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State
Tier 1 Emissions_v3’’ and the Emissions Modeling
TSD in the docket for this action.
continue to decline and remain below
one percent of the NAAQS.
T
ABLE
1—A
NNUAL
E
MISSIONS OF
NO
X
AND
VOC
S
F
ROM
A
NTHROPOGENIC
S
OURCES IN
C
ONNECTICUT
[Tons per year]
28
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Projected
2021 Projected
2023
CT NO
X
.......... 72,815 69,540 66,264 62,989 57,791 48,729 46,285 43,751 40,219 35,033 33,412
CT VOCs ........ 79,806 80,621 81,435 82,250 74,313 62,658 57,777 56,137 54,498 63,354 61,110
T
ABLE
2—A
NNUAL
E
MISSIONS OF
NO
X
AND
VOC
S
F
ROM
O
N
-R
OAD AND
N
ONROAD
V
EHICLES IN
C
ONNECTICUT
[Tons per year]
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Projected
2021 Projected
2023
CT NO
X
.......... 54,371 50,956 47,540 44,124 40,040 32,090 30,760 27,878 24,995 19,128 16,935
CT VOCs ........ 38,749 37,166 35,583 33,999 30,837 23,957 23,851 22,212 20,573 17,398 16,229
Thus, EPA’s air quality and emissions
analyses indicate that emissions from
Connecticut will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state in 2021.
IV. Proposed Action
As discussed in Section II,
Connecticut concluded that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS based on existing
control measures that are in place. EPA
conducted an independent analysis for
the analytic year 2021 based on more
recent data and updated modeling.
EPA’s evaluation of measured and
monitored data, including interpolating
values to generate a reasonable
expectation of air quality and
contribution values in 2021, is
discussed in Section III. Based on the
updated modeling and analysis, EPA
concluded that emissions from sources
in the state will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state. This
conclusion remains true for later
modeled years 2023 and 2028 in the
updated modeling EPA is relying on.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
Connecticut submission as meeting the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is soliciting public comments on
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the
ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register
document.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
48363
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 165 / Monday, August 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
1
Some NESHAP standards do not require a
source to obtain a Title V permit (e.g., certain area
sources that are exempt from the requirement to
obtain a Title V permit). For these non-Title V
sources, the EPA believes that the State must assure
the EPA that it can implement and enforce the
NESHAP for such sources. See 65 FR 55810, 55813
(September 14, 2000). The EPA previously
approved Oklahoma’s program to implement and
enforce the NESHAP as they apply to non-part 70
sources. See 66 FR 1584 (January 9, 2001).
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 24, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
[FR Doc. 2021–18516 Filed 8–27–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 61 and 63
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0086; FRL–8847–01–
R6]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
of Authority to Oklahoma
AGENCY
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has
submitted updated regulations for
receiving delegation and approval of its
program for the implementation and
enforcement of certain National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), as provided for
under previously approved delegation
mechanisms. The updated state
regulations incorporate by reference
certain NESHAP promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as they existed through June 30, 2019.
The EPA is proposing to approve
ODEQ’s requested delegation update.
The proposed delegation of authority
under this action applies to sources
located in certain areas of Indian
country as discussed herein.
DATES
: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received on or
before September 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2020–0086, at http://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
barrett.richard@epa.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Rick Barrett, 214–665–7227,
barrett.richard@epa.gov. For the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: Rick
Barrett, EPA Region 6 Office, ARPE,
(214) 665–7227, barrett.richard@
epa.gov. Out of an abundance of caution
for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed
to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID–19. We encourage
the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there
will be a delay in processing mail and
no courier or hand deliveries will be
accepted. Please call or email the
contact listed above if you need
alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What does this action do?
II. What is the authority for delegation?
III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s program
meet to be approved?
IV. How did ODEQ meet the NESHAP
program approval criteria?
V. What is being delegated?
VI. What is not being delegated?
VII. How will statutory and regulatory
interpretations be made?
VIII. What Authority Does the EPA Have?
IX. What Information must ODEQ provide to
the EPA?
X. What is the EPA’s oversight role?
XI. Should sources submit notices to the EPA
or ODEQ?
XII. How will unchanged authorities be
delegated to ODEQ in the future?
XIII. Impact on Areas of Indian Country
XIV. Proposed Action
XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What does this action do?
The EPA is proposing to approve the
delegation of the implementation and
enforcement of certain NESHAPs to
ODEQ. If finalized, the delegation will
provide ODEQ with the primary
responsibility to implement and enforce
the delegated standards.
II. What is the authority for delegation?
Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E,
authorize the EPA to delegate authority
to any State or local agency which
submits adequate regulatory procedures
for implementation and enforcement of
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant
standards are codified at 40 CFR parts
61 and 63.
III. What criteria must Oklahoma’s
program meet to be approved?
Section 112(l)(5) of the CAA requires
the EPA to disapprove any program
submitted by a State for the delegation
of NESHAP standards if the EPA
determines that:
(A) The authorities contained in the
program are not adequate to assure
compliance by the sources within the
State with respect to each applicable
standard, regulation, or requirement
established under section 112;
(B) adequate authority does not exist,
or adequate resources are not available,
to implement the program;
(C) the schedule for implementing the
program and assuring compliance by
affected sources is not sufficiently
expeditious; or
(D) the program is otherwise not in
compliance with the guidance issued by
the EPA under section 112(l)(2) or is not
likely to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
objectives of the CAA.
In carrying out its responsibilities
under section 112(l), the EPA
promulgated regulations at 40 CFR part
63, subpart E setting forth criteria for the
approval of submitted programs. For
example, in order to obtain approval of
a program to implement and enforce
Federal section 112 rules as
promulgated without changes (straight
delegation) for part 70 sources, a state
must demonstrate that it meets the
criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d). 40 CFR
63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final
Title V program approval will satisfy the
criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d).
1
The
NESHAP delegation for Oklahoma, as it
applies to both part 70 and non-part 70
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Aug 27, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM 30AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT