[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71854-71862]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27695]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-10003-69-Region 4]

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

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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee (collectively,
Southeast States) addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) good
neighbor interstate transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 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 January 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0156 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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 the disclosure of which 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 making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Southeast States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis of the
Southeast States' Submissions
    A. Analysis related to all Southeast States
    B. Alabama
    C. Florida
    D. Georgia
    E. North Carolina
    F. South Carolina
    G. Tennessee
III. Proposed Actions
IV. 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, SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these applicable
requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as
the good neighbor provision, which generally requires SIPs

to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions
activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on other
states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four so-
called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the
first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2
of the good neighbor provision, a SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or from interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA and states must give independent
significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when evaluating downwind air
quality problems under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that the Agency 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, and the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).\4\ These
actions only addressed interstate transport in the eastern United
States \5\ and did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (i.e., CSAPR) and 81 FR
74504 (October 26, 2016) (i.e., CSAPR Update).
    \5\ For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the
Western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11
western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The Eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37
states east of the 11 Western states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and previous regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor
provision,\6\ 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: \7\
(1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states
that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that
they are considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and
analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any),
considering cost and air quality factors, to prevent linked upwind
states identified in step 2 from contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations of the downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent
and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Other regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998),
and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
    \7\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some
previous particulate matter and ozone NAAQS, including in the
Western United States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018) and 83
FR 5375, 5376-77 (February 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 for 2023, on which EPA
requested comment.\8\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year for
this preliminary modeling because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.\9\ On October
27, 2017, EPA released a memorandum (2017 memorandum) containing
updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in
response to comments on the NODA.\10\ Although the 2017 memorandum also
released data for a 2023 modeling year, EPA specifically stated that
the modeling may be useful for states developing SIPs to address
remaining good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but did
not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, on March 27, 2018, EPA
issued a memorandum (March 2018 memorandum) indicating the same 2023
modeling data released in the 2017 memorandum would also be useful for
evaluating potential downwind air quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the four-step framework).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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\ See 82 FR 1735.
    \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 at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 memorandum included newly available contribution
modeling results to assist states in evaluating their impact on
potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the four-step
framework) in their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for the 2015
ozone NAAQS to address their interstate transport obligations.\11\ EPA
subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and October 2018,
providing guidance to states developing good neighbor SIPs for the 2015
ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively, potential contribution thresholds
that may be appropriate to apply in step 2 and considerations for
identifying downwind areas that may have problems maintaining the
standard (under prong 2 of the good neighbor provision) at step 1 of
the framework.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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 https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \12\ 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
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018
(``October 2018 memorandum''), available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the
updated photochemical and source apportionment modeling used to project
ambient ozone concentrations for the year 2023 and the state-by state
impacts on those concentrations. The March 2018 memorandum also
explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the
2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As
described in more detail in the 2017 and March 2018 memoranda, EPA used
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40)
to model average and maximum design values in 2023 to identify
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e., monitoring
sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
2015 ozone NAAQS). The March 2018 memorandum presents design values
calculated in two ways: First, following EPA's historic ``3 x 3''

approach to evaluating all sites; and second, following a modified
approach for coastal monitoring sites in which ``overwater'' modeling
data were not included in the calculation of future year design values
(referred to as the ``no water'' approach).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See March 2018 memorandum, p. 4, for more detail on
modeling approach. For the no water approach, EPA eliminated from
the design value calculations those modeling data in grid cells that
are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent of the area in
the grid cell is water) and that do not contain a monitoring site
(i.e., if a grid cell is more than 50 percent water but contains an
air quality monitor, that cell would remain in the calculation). For
this action, EPA used no water averages to identify each state's
impact on any downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, which
can be found in Attachment C of the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023, EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR
Update, wherein EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and
modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, EPA
identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with
measured values \14\ exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected
(i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. EPA
identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with
projected maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included
sites with measured values below the NAAQS but with projected average
and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites
with projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. EPA included the design
values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated
2023 modeling in Attachment B to the March 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA used 2016 ozone design values, based on 2014-2016
measured data, which were the most current data at the time of the
analysis. See attachment B of the March 2018 memorandum, p. B-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling to estimate the expected impact from each state
to each nonattainment and maintenance receptor.\15\ EPA included
contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment
modeling in Attachment C to the March 2018 memorandum. For more
specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see the 2017
and March 2018 memoranda, the NODA for the preliminary interstate
transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As discussed in the March 2018 memorandum, EPA performed
source-apportionment model runs for a modeling domain that covers
the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia, and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR and the 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 four-step 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 will 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, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary to address the good neighbor provision.
    As noted previously, on August 31, 2018, EPA issued a memorandum
(the August 2018 memorandum) providing guidance concerning potential
contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS in step 2. Consistent with the process for
selecting the one percent threshold in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the
memorandum included analytical information regarding the degree to
which potential air quality thresholds would capture the collective
amount of upwind contribution from upwind states to downwind receptors
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The August 2018 memorandum indicated that,
based on EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the amount of
upwind collective contribution captured using a 1 ppb threshold is
generally comparable, overall, to the amount captured using a threshold
equivalent to one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA
indicated that it may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a
1 ppb contribution threshold, as an alternative to the one percent
threshold, at step 2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP
revisions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See August 2018 memorandum, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the March 2018 memorandum presented information regarding
EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches EPA
has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, EPA has not made any
final determinations regarding how states should identify downwind
receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-
step framework. Rather, EPA noted that states have flexibility in
developing their own SIPs to follow different analytical approaches
than EPA's, so long as their chosen approach has an adequate technical
justification and is consistent with the requirements of the CAA.

II. Southeast States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis of the Southeast
States' Submissions

    The following discussion summarizes EPA's analyses for the
submissions from the Southeast States intended to meet prongs 1 and 2
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

A. Analysis Related to All Southeast States

    EPA is proposing to rely on the 2023 modeling data identifying
downwind receptors and upwind state contributions, as released in the
March 2018 memorandum, to evaluate the Southeast States' good neighbor
obligation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On September 13, 2019,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) issued its decision in Wisconsin v. EPA addressing legal
challenges to the CSAPR Update, in which EPA partially addressed
certain upwind states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. 938 F.3d 303. While the court generally upheld the rule as to
most of the challenges raised in the litigation, the court remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contributions in accordance with the
attainment dates found in CAA section 181 by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS. Id. at 313. In light of the
court's decision, EPA is providing further explanation regarding why it
proposes to find that it is appropriate and consistent with the
statute--as well as the legal precedent--to use the 2023 analytic year
for assessing good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA believes that 2023 is an appropriate year for analysis of good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the 2023 ozone
season is the last relevant ozone season during

which achieved emissions reductions in linked upwind states could
assist downwind states with meeting the August 2, 2024 Moderate area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA recognizes that the
attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as Marginal for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is August 2, 2021, which currently applies in several
downwind nonattainment areas evaluated in EPA's modeling.\17\ However,
as explained below, EPA does not believe that either the statute or
applicable case law requires the evaluation of good neighbor
obligations in a future year aligned with the attainment date for
nonattainment areas classified as Marginal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Marginal area attainment date is not applicable for
nonattainment areas already classified as Moderate or higher, such
as the New York Metropolitan Area. For the status of all
nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, see U.S. EPA, 8-Hour
Ozone (2015) Designated Area/State Information, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html (last updated Sept. 30,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The good neighbor provision instructs EPA and states to apply its
requirements ``consistent with the provisions of'' title I of the CAA.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); see also North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This consistency instruction follows the
requirement that plans ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting''
certain emissions in the good neighbor provision. As the D.C. Circuit
held in North Carolina, and more recently in Wisconsin, the good
neighbor provision must be applied in a manner consistent with the
designation and planning requirements in title I that apply in downwind
states and, in particular, the timeframe within which downwind states
are required to implement specific emissions control measures in
nonattainment areas and submit plans demonstrating how those areas will
attain, relative to the applicable attainment dates. See North
Carolina, 896 F.3d at 912 (holding that the good neighbor provision's
reference to title I requires consideration of both procedural and
substantive provisions in title I); Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313-18.
    While EPA recognizes, as the court held in North Carolina and
Wisconsin, that upwind emissions-reduction obligations therefore must
generally be aligned with downwind receptors' attainment dates, unique
features of the statutory requirements associated with the Marginal
area planning requirements and attainment date under CAA section 182
lead EPA to conclude that it is more reasonable and appropriate to
require the alignment of upwind good neighbor obligations with later
attainment dates applicable for Moderate or higher classifications.
Under the CAA, states with areas designated nonattainment are generally
required to submit, as part of their state implementation plan, an
``attainment demonstration'' that shows, usually through air quality
modeling, how an area will attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. See CAA section 172(c)(1).\18\ Such plans must also
include, among other things, the adoption of all ``reasonably
available'' control measures on existing sources, a demonstration of
``reasonable further progress'' toward attainment, and contingency
measures, which are specific controls that will take effect if the area
fails to attain by its attainment date or fails to make reasonable
further progress toward attainment. See, e.g., CAA section 172(c)(1);
172(c)(2); 172(c)(9). Ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal
are excepted from these general requirements under the CAA--unlike
other areas designated nonattainment under the Act (including for other
NAAQS pollutants), Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are specifically
exempted from submitting an attainment demonstration and are not
required to implement any specific emissions controls at existing
sources in order to meet the planning requirements applicable to such
areas. See CAA section 182(a) (``The requirements of this subsection
shall apply in lieu of any requirement that the State submit a
demonstration that the applicable implementation plan provides for
attainment of the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date in
any Marginal Area.'') \19\ Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are also
exempted from demonstrating reasonable further progress towards
attainment and submitting contingency measures. See CAA section 182(a)
(does not include a reasonable further progress requirement and
specifically notes that ``Section [172(c)(9)] of this title (relating
to contingency measures) shall not apply to Marginal Areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Part D of title I of the CAA provides the plan requirements
for all nonattainment areas. Subpart 1, which includes section
172(c), applies to all nonattainment areas. Congress provided in
subparts 2-5 additional requirements specific to the various NAAQS
pollutants that nonattainment areas must meet.
    \19\ States with Marginal nonattainment areas are required to
implement new source review permitting for new and modified sources,
but the purpose of those requirements is to ensure that potential
emissions increases do not interfere with progress towards
attainment, as opposed to reducing existing emissions. Moreover, EPA
acknowledges that states within ozone transport regions must
implement certain emission control measures at existing sources in
accordance with CAA section 184, but those requirements apply
regardless of the applicable area designation or classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing regulations--either local, state, or federal--are
typically a part of the reason why ``additional'' local controls are
not needed to bring Marginal nonattainment areas into attainment. As
described in EPA's record for its final rule defining area
classifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and establishing associated
attainment dates, history has shown that the majority of areas
classified as Marginal for prior ozone standards attained the
respective standards by the Marginal area attainment date (i.e.,
without being re-classified to a Moderate designation). See 83 FR
10376. As part of a historical lookback, EPA calculated that by the
relevant attainment date for areas classified as Marginal, 85 percent
of such areas attained the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and 64 percent
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\20\ Based on these historical data, EPA
expects that many areas classified Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
will also attain by the relevant attainment date as a result of
emissions reductions that are already expected to occur through
implementation of existing local, state, and federal emissions
reduction programs. To the extent states have concerns about meeting
their attainment date for a Marginal area, the CAA under section
181(b)(3) provides authority for them to voluntarily request a higher
classification for individual areas, if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Response to Comments on Implementation of the 2015
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area
Classifications Approach (February 26, 2018), at section A.2.4,
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202-0122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas that are classified as Moderate typically have more
pronounced air quality problems than Marginal areas or have been unable
to attain the NAAQS under the minimal requirements that apply to
Marginal areas. See CAA sections 181(a)(1) (classifying areas based on
the degree of nonattainment relative to the NAAQS) and (b)(2)
(providing for reclassification to the next highest designation upon
failure to attain the standard by the attainment date). Thus, unlike
Marginal areas, the statute explicitly requires a state with an ozone
nonattainment area classified as Moderate or higher to develop an
attainment plan demonstrating how the state will address the more
significant air quality problem, which generally requires the
application of various control measures to existing sources of
emissions located in the nonattainment

area. See generally CAA sections 172(c) and 182(b)-(e).
    Given that downwind states are not required to demonstrate
attainment by the attainment date or impose additional controls on
existing sources in a Marginal nonattainment area, EPA believes that it
would be inconsistent to interpret the good neighbor provision as
requiring EPA to evaluate the necessity for upwind state emissions
reductions based on air quality modeled in a future year aligned with
the Marginal area attainment date. Rather, EPA believes it is more
appropriate and consistent with the nonattainment planning provisions
in title I to evaluate downwind air quality and upwind state
contributions, and, therefore, the necessity for upwind state emissions
reductions, in a year aligned with an area classification in connection
with which downwind states are also required to demonstrate attainment
and implement controls on existing sources--i.e., with the Moderate
area attainment date, rather than the Marginal area date. With respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Moderate area attainment date will be in
the summer of 2024, and the last full year of monitored ozone-season
data that will inform attainment demonstrations is, therefore, 2023.
    EPA's interpretation of the good neighbor requirements in relation
to the Marginal area attainment date is consistent with the Wisconsin
opinion. For the reasons explained below, the court's holding does not
contradict EPA's view that 2023 is an appropriate analytic year in
evaluating good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The court in
Wisconsin was concerned that allowing upwind emission reductions to be
implemented after the applicable attainment date would require downwind
states to obtain more emissions reductions than the Act requires of
them, to make up for the absence of sufficient emissions reductions
from upwind states. See 938 F.3d at 316. As discussed previously,
however, this equitable concern only arises for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher for which downwind states are required
by the CAA to develop attainment plans securing reductions from
existing sources and demonstrating how such areas will attain by the
attainment date. See, e.g., CAA section 182(b)(1) & (2) (establishing
``reasonable further progress'' and ``reasonably available control
technology'' requirements for Moderate nonattainment areas). Ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Marginal are not required to meet
these same planning requirements, and thus the equitable concerns
raised by the Wisconsin court do not arise with respect to downwind
areas subject to the Marginal area attainment date.
    The distinction between planning obligations for Marginal
nonattainment areas and higher classifications was not before the court
in Wisconsin. Rather, the court was considering whether EPA, in
implementing its obligation to promulgate federal implementation plans
under CAA section 110(c), was required to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations by the 2018 Moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at 312-13. Although the court noted that
petitioners had not ``forfeited'' an argument with respect to the
Marginal area attainment date, see id. at 314, the court did not
address whether its holding with respect to the 2018 Moderate area date
would have applied with equal force to the Marginal area attainment
date because that date had already passed. Thus, the court did not have
the opportunity to consider these differential planning obligations in
reaching its decision regarding EPA's obligations relative to the then-
applicable 2018 Moderate area attainment date because such
considerations were not applicable to the case before the court.\21\
For the reasons discussed here, the equitable concerns supporting the
Wisconsin court's holding as to upwind state obligations relative to
the Moderate area attainment date also support EPA's interpretation of
the good neighbor provision relative to the Marginal area attainment
date. Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that its reliance on an evaluation
of air quality in the 2023 analytical year for purposes of assessing
good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based
on a reasonable interpretation of the CAA and legal precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The D.C. Circuit, in a short judgment, subsequently vacated
and remanded EPA's action purporting to fully resolve good neighbor
obligations for certain states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, referred to
as the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (Dec. 21, 2018). New York v.
EPA, No. 19-1019 (Oct. 1, 2019). That result necessarily followed
from the Wisconsin decision, because as EPA conceded, the Close-Out
``relied upon the same statutory interpretation of the Good Neighbor
Provision'' rejected in Wisconsin. Id. slip op. at 3. In the Close-
Out, EPA had analyzed the year 2023, which was two years after the
Serious area attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and not
aligned with any attainment date for that NAAQS. Id. at 2. In New
York, as in Wisconsin, the court was not faced with addressing
specific issues associated with the unique planning requirements
associated with the Marginal area attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, the March 2018 memorandum identifies
potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the
definitions applied in the CSAPR Update and using both the ``3 x 3''
and the ``no water'' approaches to calculating future year design
values. The March 2018 memorandum identifies 57 potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49),
and Colorado (6).\22\ The March 2018 memorandum also provides
contribution data regarding the impact of other states on the potential
receptors. For purposes of evaluating the Southeast States' 2015 ozone
NAAQS interstate transport SIP submission, we propose that, at least
where a state's impacts are less than one percent to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance sites, it is reasonable to conclude that
the state's impact will not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA
notes, nonetheless, that consistent with the August 2018 memorandum, it
may be reasonable and appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb
contribution threshold, as an alternative to a one percent threshold,
at step 2 of the four-step framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
However, for the reasons discussed below, it is unnecessary for EPA to
determine whether it may be appropriate to apply a 1 ppb threshold for
purposes of this action.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The number of receptors in the identified western states is
57, irrespective of whether the ``3 x 3'' or ``no water'' approach
is used. Further, although EPA has indicated that states may have
flexibilities to apply a different analytic approach to evaluating
interstate transport, including identifying downwind air quality
problems, because EPA is also concluding in this proposed action
that the Southeast States will have an insignificant impact on any
potential receptors identified in its analysis, these Southeast
States need not definitively determine whether the identified
monitoring sites should be treated as receptors for the 2015 ozone
standard.
    \23\ As further discussed below, because none of Southeast
States' impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they necessarily also do not exceed
the 1 ppb contribution threshold discussed in the August 2018
memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA notes that--due to large distance and a general
prevailing west to east wind flow--there is no evidence that any of the
Southeastern States will impact potential receptors in the West.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See footnote 5, above, regarding states considered to be in
the West.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alabama

    On August 20, 2018, Alabama submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Alabama relied on the results of EPA's modeling
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March

2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Alabama.
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) reviewed
EPA's preliminary 2023 modeling and determined that the future year
projections are appropriate for the purposes of evaluating Alabama's
impact on nonattainment and maintenance receptors in other states.
Alabama concurred with EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling
results, which indicate that Alabama does not contribute above one
percent to any downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites. The August
20, 2018, submittal from Alabama also included additional programs that
have led to the reduction of ozone in the state. Therefore, ADEM
concluded that emissions from Alabama sources will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Alabama's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.37 ppb and
0.49 ppb, respectively.\25\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\26\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Alabama are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Alabama will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Alabama will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA's analysis indicates that Alabama will have a 0.37 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Tarrant, Texas
(Site ID 484392003), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.8 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Alabama will have a 0.49 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Denton, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has
which has a projected 2023 average design value of 69.7 ppb, a 2023
projected maximum design value of 72.0 ppb, and had a 2014-2016
design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
    \26\ Because none of Alabama's impacts equal or exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not equal or exceed the 1 ppb contribution
threshold discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Florida

    On September 18, 2018,\27\ Florida submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Florida relied on the results of
EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Florida.
Based on Florida's review of EPA's modeling assumptions and model
performance evaluation, Florida determined that EPA's future year
projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating Florida impact
on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
For example, Florida found that EPA's modeling used emissions inventory
projections that were reasonable considering the projected future
decline in Florida NOX emissions. Thus, Florida concurred
with EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Florida's
greatest impacts on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor would be 0.21 ppb and 0.53 ppb, respectively.\28\ Florida
compared these values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb,
representing one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that
because none of Florida's impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from
Florida sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Additionally, Florida's submission identifies SIP-approved regulations
that both directly and indirectly regulate sources of ozone precursor
emissions that contribute to ozone concentrations in ambient air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA notes that the Florida submission was received by EPA
on September 26, 2018.
    \28\ EPA's analysis indicates that Florida will have a 0.21 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Brazoria, Texas
(Site ID 480391004), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.9 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Florida will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID 482011034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 70.8
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Florida's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.21 ppb and
0.53 ppb, respectively.\29\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\30\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Florida are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Florida will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Florida will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ EPA's analysis indicates that Florida will have a 0.21 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Brazoria, Texas
(Site ID 480391004), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 74.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.9 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Florida will have a 0.53 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Harris, Texas (Site ID 482011034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 70.8
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 71.6 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments B, C.
    \30\ Because none of Florida's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Georgia

    On September 19, 2018,\31\ the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (GA EPD) submitted a SIP revision addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Georgia relied on the results of EPA's modeling for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted
by emissions from sources in Georgia.\32\ Based on Georgia's review of
EPA's modeling assumptions and model performance evaluation, Georgia
determined that EPA's future year projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Georgia's impact on attainment and maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. Thus, Georgia concurred with
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Georgia's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.26

ppb and 0.34 ppb, respectively. Georgia compared these values to a
screening threshold and concluded that emissions from Georgia sources
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the Georgia submittal identified regulations that have been approved
into the Georgia SIP to provide for the control of NOX and
VOCs, which are precursors that contribute to ambient ozone
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA notes that the Georgia submission was received by EPA
on September 24, 2018.
    \32\ See Table A-1 and Table A-2 in Appendix A of Georgia's
submittal. EPD highlights Georgia's impact to nonattainment and
maintenance sites in the East. They also note that all values are
less than the defined threshold of 0.70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Georgia's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.26 ppb and
0.34 ppb, respectively.\33\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\34\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Georgia are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Georgia will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Georgia will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ EPA's analysis indicates that Georgia will have a 0.26 ppb
impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Tarrant, Texas
(Site ID 484392003), which has a 2023 projected average design value
of 72.5 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.8 ppb, and
had a 2014-2016 design value of 73 ppb. EPA's analysis further
indicates that Georgia will have a 0.34 ppb impact at a potential
maintenance receptor in Denton, Texas (Site ID 481210034), which has
which has a projected 2023 projected average design value of 69.7
ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of 72.0 ppb, and had a
2014-2016 design value of 80 ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachments B, C.
    \34\ Because none of Georgia's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. North Carolina

    On September 27, 2018, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. North Carolina relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the
March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in
North Carolina. Based on North Carolina's review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, the State determined that EPA's future year projections
were conservative for purposes of evaluating North Carolina's impact on
attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Thus, North Carolina concurred with EPA's photochemical modeling
results that indicate North Carolina's greatest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor would be 0.43 ppb and
0.42 ppb, respectively. North Carolina compared these values to a
screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because North Carolina's impacts to
neighboring states are projected to be less than 0.70 ppb, emissions
from North Carolina sources will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state. North Carolina further performed back trajectory
analyses to confirm that North Carolina did not significantly
contribute to ozone exceedances at ozone monitors in the East, and
identified SIP-approved regulations that both directly and indirectly
impact ozone concentrations in the State.
    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that North Carolina's largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.43
ppb and 0.42 ppb, respectively.\35\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb
(one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\36\ and as a result, demonstrate
that emissions from North Carolina are not linked to any 2023 downwind
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the
March 2018 memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that
emissions from North Carolina will impact receptors in the West.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from North
Carolina will not contribute to any potential receptors, and thus, the
State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EPA's analysis indicates that North Carolina will have a
0.43 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in
Fairfield, Connecticut (Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023
projected average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 85.0
ppb. EPA's analysis further indicates that North Carolina will have
a 0.42 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor in Harford,
Maryland (Site ID 240251001), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.9 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 73.3 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 73.0
ppb. See the March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
    \36\ Because none of North Carolina's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. South Carolina

    On September 7, 2018, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. South Carolina relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the
March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in
South Carolina. Based on South Carolina's review of EPA's modeling
assumptions, techniques, and data, South Carolina determined that EPA's
future year projections were appropriate for purposes of evaluating
South Carolina's impact on attainment and maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. Thus, South Carolina concurred with EPA's
photochemical modeling results that indicate South Carolina's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.12 and 0.14 ppb, respectively. South Carolina compared these
values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because none of South
Carolina's impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from South Carolina
sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The South
Carolina SIP also includes several regulations that address the
attainment, nonattainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that South Carolina's largest impact on any potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.12
ppb and 0.14 ppb, respectively.\37\

These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS),\38\ and as a result, demonstrate that emissions from South
Carolina are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential nonattainment
and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018 memorandum. As
discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions from South
Carolina will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA proposes
to conclude that emissions from South Carolina will not contribute to
any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ EPA's analysis indicates that South Carolina will have a
0.12 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in
Fairfield, Connecticut (Site ID 90019003), which has a 2023
projected average design value of 73.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 75.9 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 85
ppb. EPA's analysis further indicates that South Carolina will have
a 0.14 ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor in Harris,
Texas (Site ID 482010024), which has which has a projected 2023
projected average design value of 70.4 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum
design value of 72.8 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 79 ppb.
See the March 2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
    \38\ Because none of South Carolina's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb,
they necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Tennessee

    On September 13, 2018, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Tennessee relied on the results
of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Tennessee.
Based on Tennessee's review of EPA's modeling assumptions, Tennessee
determined that EPA's future year projections were appropriate for
purposes of evaluating Tennessee's impact on attainment and maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. Thus, Tennessee concurred with
EPA's photochemical modeling results that indicate Tennessee's greatest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
would be 0.31 ppb and 0.65 ppb, respectively. Tennessee compared these
values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that because none of Tennessee's
impacts exceed this threshold, emissions from Tennessee sources will
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the Tennessee SIP includes several regulations that address the
attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the March 2018 memorandum
indicates that Tennessee's largest impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the East are 0.31 ppb and
0.65 ppb, respectively.\39\ These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS),\40\ and as a result, demonstrate that
emissions from Tennessee are not linked to any 2023 downwind potential
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the March 2018
memorandum. As discussed above, there is no evidence that emissions
from Tennessee will impact receptors in the West. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to conclude that emissions from Tennessee will not contribute
to any potential receptors, and thus, the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPA's analysis indicates that Tennessee will have a 0.31
ppb impact at three potential nonattainment receptors: Fairfield,
Connecticut (Site ID 90013007), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 71.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.0 ppb, and had a 2014-2016 design value of 81 ppb; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (Site ID 550790085), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 71.2 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
73 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 71 ppb; and Sheboygan,
Wisconsin (Site ID 551170006), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 72.8 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
75.1 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 79 ppb. EPA's analysis
further indicates that Tennessee will have a 0.65 ppb impact at a
potential maintenance receptor Allegan, Michigan (Site ID
260050003), which has which has a projected 2023 projected average
design value of 69.0 ppb, a 2023 projected maximum design value of
71.7 ppb and had a 2014-2016 design value of 75 ppb. See the March
2018 memorandum, attachments B, C.
    \40\ Because none of Tennessee's impacts exceed 0.70 ppb, they
necessarily also do not exceed the 1 ppb contribution threshold
discussed in the August 2018 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Actions

    As discussed in the previous sections, each of the Southeast States
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee) concluded that emissions from sources in the states will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. EPA's evaluation of the
Southeast States' submissions, discussed above, confirms this finding.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the interstate transport
portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions from Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is requesting comments on the proposed approvals.

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 CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Tennessee, 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).
    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
proposed 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 (CIN) 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 CIN 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 12, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-27695 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P