[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60897-60925]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20460]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0742; FRL-8425-02-OAR]

Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Extensions
of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of Areas Classified as
Marginal for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
finalizing three types of actions the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
related to 28 areas classified as ``Marginal'' for the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). First, the Agency is
determining that five Marginal areas attained the standards by the
August 3, 2021, applicable attainment date. Second, the Agency is
granting a 1-year attainment date extension for the Uinta Basin, Utah
(UT), nonattainment area. Third, the Agency is determining that 22
Marginal areas or portions of areas failed to attain the standards by
the applicable attainment date. The effect of failing to attain by the
applicable attainment date is that these areas or portions of areas
will be reclassified by operation of law to ``Moderate'' nonattainment
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on November 7, 2022, the effective date of
this final rule. Accordingly, the responsible state air agencies must
submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions and implement controls
to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for Moderate areas
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to the deadlines established in this
final rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a public docket for these ozone
designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0742. Although listed in the docket index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, contact Emily Millar, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01 Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected]; or Robert Lingard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; by telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    The following is an outline of the Preamble.

I. Review of Proposed Actions
    A. Proposed Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Determinations of Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date and
Extensions of the Attainment Date
    B. Proposed International Transport and Requirements for CAA
Section 179B
    C. Proposed Moderate Area SIP Submission and Controls
Implementation Deadlines
II. Responses to Comments and Final Actions
    A. Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date
    B. Extension of Marginal Area Attainment Date
    C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification
    D. International Transport and Requirements for CAA Section 179B

    E. Moderate Area SIP Revision Submission and Implementation
Deadlines
III. Environmental Justice (EJ) Impacts
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    L. Judicial Review

I. Proposed Actions

A. Proposed Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Determinations of Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date and
Extensions of the Attainment Date

    On April 13, 2022, the EPA proposed actions to fulfill its
statutory obligation under CAA section 181 to determine whether 31
Marginal ozone nonattainment areas attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by
August 3, 2021, the applicable attainment date for such areas.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 87 FR 21842 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the EPA proposed to find that six areas--Atlanta, Georgia
(GA); Manitowoc County, Wisconsin (WI); Southern Wasatch Front, Utah;
Amador County, California (CA); San Francisco Bay, California; and
Yuma, Arizona (AZ)--attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone
air quality monitoring data for the 2018-2020 calendar years.
    Second, the EPA proposed to grant the state of Utah's request for a
1-year extension of the attainment date from August 3, 2021, to August
3, 2022, for the Uinta Basin, UT nonattainment area. The proposed
extension was based on a finding that the state met the statutory and
regulatory requirements for a 1-year extension of the attainment date.
Other information the EPA analyzed, such as air quality data indicating
that the Uinta Basin area would likely qualify for a second extension
and could possibly attain the NAAQS by a second extended attainment
date, and screening analyses indicating that existing pollution burdens
within the Uinta Basin area were not disproportionately high relative
to the rest of the United States, were consistent with the EPA's
proposal that an extension was appropriate under these circumstances.
The EPA therefore proposed that upon the effective date of a final
reclassification action, the attainment date for this area would be
extended to August 3, 2022.
    Third, the EPA proposed to find that 24 areas failed to attain the
2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and did not qualify
for a 1-year attainment date extension. The 24 areas were: Allegan
County, Michigan (MI); Baltimore, Maryland (MD); Berrien County,
Michigan; Chicago, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-N-WI); Cincinnati,
Ohio-Kentucky (OH-KY); Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas (TX);
Denver Metro/North Front Range, Colorado (CO) (Denver area); Detroit,
Michigan; Door County-Revised, Wisconsin; Greater Connecticut,
Connecticut (CT); Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas; Louisville,
Kentucky-Indiana; Mariposa, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Muskegon
County, Michigan; North Wasatch Front, Utah; Pechanga Band of
Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland-Delaware (PA-NJ-MD-DE); Phoenix-Mesa,
Arizona; San Antonio, Texas; Sheboygan County, Wisconsin; St. Louis,
Missouri-Illinois (MO-L); and Washington, District of Columbia-
Maryland-Virginia (DC-MD-VA). The proposed determination for each of
these areas was based upon complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone air quality monitoring data that showed that the 8-hour ozone
design value (DV) for the area exceeded 0.070 parts per million (ppm)
for the period 2018-2020, i.e., the area's DV as of the attainment
date. The EPA proposed that these 24 areas would be reclassified as
Moderate nonattainment areas by operation of law on the effective date
of a final action finding that these areas failed to attain the 2015
ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date for Marginal areas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the EPA issued its proposal in April, the Agency redesignated
the Manitowoc County, WI area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
therefore we are not finalizing our proposed determination of
attainment for the area as part of this notice.\3\ Similarly, since
April, the EPA has redesignated the Door County-Revised, WI area; the
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area; and, the Indiana portion of
Louisville area to attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on
attaining air quality for the period 2019-2021 and, therefore, we are
not finalizing our proposed determinations of failure to attain and
reclassifications for these areas or portions of redesignated areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Manitowoc County area was redesignated to attainment for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS effective March 31, 2022 (87 FR 18702, March
31, 2022).
    \4\ Final redesignation actions for these areas were effective
upon publication in the Federal Register: Door County-Revised, WI
area (87 FR 25410, April 29, 2022); the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati, OH-KY area (87 FR 35104, June 9, 2022); and the Indiana
portion of Louisville, KY-IN area (87 FR 37950, July 5, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, ten additional Marginal areas are not included in this
action because they are being addressed in separate actions:
    1. On July 14, 2022, the EPA proposed to find that the Butte
County, Calaveras County, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part), Sutter
Buttes, Tuolumne County, and Tuscan Buttes areas in California attained
by the attainment date (87 FR 42126).
    2. On July 22, 2022, the EPA proposed to find that the Las Vegas,
Nevada (NV) nonattainment area failed to attain by the attainment date.
If this action is finalized as proposed, the Las Vegas, NV area will be
reclassified as Moderate (87 FR 43764).
    3. On August 15, 2022, the EPA proposed to find that the Imperial
County, CA nonattainment area attained by the attainment date but for
emissions emanating from outside the United States (87 FR 50030).
    4. The EPA will be acting on the El Paso-Las Cruces, Texas-New
Mexico nonattainment area in a separate action.
    5. The EPA will be acting on the Detroit, MI nonattainment area in
a separate action.
    A summary of the actions proposed for the 28 areas covered by this
final action is provided in Table 1 of this action.

                  Table 1--2015 Ozone NAAQS Marginal Nonattainment Area Proposed Action Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Area failed to
                                                                                attain 2015 NAAQS
                                    2018-2020                                                but state requested
                                      design     2015 NAAQS attained    2020 4th highest      1-year attainment
  2015 NAAQS nonattainment area    value  (DV)     by the Marginal     daily maximum 8-hr   date extension based
                                      (ppm)        attainment date        average (ppm)      on 2020 4th highest
                                                                                daily maximum 8-hr
                                                                                average <=0.070 ppm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan County, MI...............        0.073  Failed to Attain....  0.076...............  No.
Amador County, CA................        0.069  Attained............  Not applicable......  Not applicable.
Atlanta, GA *....................        0.070  Attained............  Not applicable......  Not applicable.
Baltimore, MD....................        0.072  Failed to Attain....  0.069...............  No.
Berrien County, MI...............        0.072  Failed to Attain....  0.078...............  No.
Chicago, IL-IN-WI................        0.077  Failed to Attain....  0.079...............  No.
Cincinnati, OH-KY **.............        0.074  Failed to Attain....  0.071...............  No.
Cleveland, OH....................        0.074  Failed to Attain....  0.075...............  No.
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX............        0.076  Failed to Attain....  0.077...............  No.
Denver Metro/North Front Range,          0.081  Failed to Attain....  0.087...............  No.
 CO.
Greater Connecticut, CT..........        0.073  Failed to Attain....  0.071...............  No.
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX...        0.079  Failed to Attain....  0.075...............  No.
Louisville, KY-IN ***............        0.072  Failed to Attain....  0.071...............  No.
Mariposa County, CA..............        0.079  Failed to Attain....  0.091...............  No.
Milwaukee, WI....................        0.071  Failed to Attain....  0.077...............  No.
Muskegon County, MI..............        0.076  Failed to Attain....  0.080...............  No.
Northern Wasatch Front, UT ****..        0.077  Failed to Attain....  0.080...............  No.
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o          0.078  Failed to Attain....  0.084...............  No.
 Mission Indians *****.
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic         0.074  Failed to Attain....  0.071...............  No.
 City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ.................        0.079  Failed to Attain....  0.087...............  No.
San Antonio, TX ******...........        0.072  Failed to Attain....  0.074...............  No.
San Francisco Bay, CA............        0.069  Attained............  Not applicable......  Not applicable.
Sheboygan County, WI.............        0.075  Failed to Attain....  0.076...............  No.
Southern Wasatch Front, UT.......        0.069  Attained............  Not applicable......  Not applicable.
St. Louis, MO-IL.................        0.071  Failed to Attain....  0.074...............  No.
Uinta Basin, UT..................        0.076  Failed to Attain....  0.066...............  Yes.
Washington, DC-MD-VA.............        0.071  Failed to Attain....  0.065...............  No.
Yuma, AZ.........................        0.068  Attained............  Not applicable......  Not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* On August 26, 2022, the EPA proposed to redesignate the Atlanta, GA area to attainment for the 2015 ozone
  NAAQS (87 FR 52487).
** Ohio portion of area redesignated to attainment (87 FR 35104, June 9, 2022).
*** Indiana portion of area redesignated to attainment (87 FR 39750, July 5, 2022).
**** On May 28, 2021, the state of Utah submitted a CAA section 179B demonstration for the Northern Wasatch
  Front nonattainment area, which EPA found does not meet the criteria for such a demonstration.
***** Concentrations listed are for the Temecula monitor (AQS ID 06-065-0016); quality assurance issues with the
  data from the Pechanga monitor resulted in the 2018 data year not being appropriate for comparison to the
  NAAQS, and an invalid 2020 DV per DV calculation requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix U, section
  4(b). Ozone data collected at the Temecula monitoring site was used in previous regulatory actions and deemed
  representative of ozone conditions on the Pechanga Reservation. E.g., 80 FR 18120, April 3, 2015, at 18121-
  18122 (final rule redesignating the Pechanga air quality planning area from nonattainment to attainment for
  the 1997 ozone NAAQS).
****** On July 13, 2020, the state of Texas submitted a CAA section 179B demonstration for the San Antonio
  nonattainment area that the EPA found does not meet the criteria for such a demonstration.

B. Proposed International Transport and Requirements for CAA Section
179B

    In the April 2022 proposal, the EPA proposed to disapprove the CAA
section 179B demonstrations submitted by the states of Texas and Utah
for the San Antonio, Texas, and Northern Wasatch Front, Utah,
nonattainment areas, respectively. The EPA sought comment on its
application of the statutory provisions in CAA section 179B to these
submissions, consistent with the Agency recommendations in the CAA
section 179B Guidance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Final Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act
Section 179B Demonstrations for Nonattainment Areas Affected by
International Transport of Emissions'' available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Moderate Area SIP Submission and Controls Implementation
Deadlines

    In the April 2022 proposal, the EPA solicited comment on adjusting
the due dates, in accordance with CAA section 182(i), for submission
and implementation deadlines for all SIP requirements that apply to
Moderate areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 182(a) and (b), and 40
CFR 51.1300 et seq.). Under CAA section 181(b)(2), Marginal
nonattainment areas that fail to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date will be reclassified as Moderate by
operation of law upon the effective date of the final determination.
Each responsible state air agency must subsequently submit a SIP
revision that satisfies the air quality planning requirements for a
Moderate area under CAA section 182(b).
    On August 3, 2018 (September 24, 2018, for the San Antonio area),
when final nonattainment designations became effective for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, states responsible for areas initially classified as
Moderate were required to prepare and submit SIP revisions by deadlines
relative to that effective date. For those areas, the submission
deadlines ranged from 2 to 3 years after the effective date of
designation, depending on the SIP element required (e.g., 2 years for
the reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP, 3 years for the
attainment plan with reasonably available control measures (RACM) and
attainment

demonstration, and 3 years for a Basic vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program SIP if required). Areas initially classified
as Moderate are also required to implement RACM and RACT as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th
year after the effective date of designations, i.e., January 1, 2023,
with 2023 being the Moderate area attainment year (defined as the last
calendar year prior to the applicable attainment date of August 3,
2024). Since those SIP submission dates have passed, the EPA proposed
in its April 2022 proposal to apply the Administrator's discretion
provided in CAA section 182(i) to adjust the Moderate area SIP due
dates as well as certain implementation deadlines for newly
reclassified areas. CAA section 182(i) requires that reclassified areas
meet the applicable plan submission requirements ``according to the
schedules prescribed in connection with such requirements, except that
the Administrator may adjust any applicable deadlines (other than
attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or
appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.''
1. Submission Deadlines for SIP Revisions
    The EPA proposed to align the SIP submission deadlines for RACT and
I/M with the proposed January 1, 2023, submission deadline for other
Moderate area requirements, given the compressed timeline and the need
to achieve consistency among those submissions as discussed previously.
The EPA adopted this approach previously for Marginal areas
reclassified as Moderate for failure to timely attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, to achieve consistency among required SIP submissions for areas
facing a similarly compressed timeframe between the effective date of
reclassification and the Moderate area attainment date.\6\ Similarly,
with respect to the SIP submission deadline for I/M for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, we proposed a January 1, 2023, deadline consistent with the I/M
regulations which provide that an I/M SIP shall be submitted no later
than the deadline for submitting the area's attainment SIP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Final Rule--Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment
Date, Extensions of the Attainment Date, and Reclassification of
Several Areas for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (81 FR 26697, 26705, May 4, 2016).
    \7\ 40 CFR 51.372(b)(2). See the April 2022 proposal for more
background information on I/M SIP requirements (87 FR 21852-21855).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. RACM and RACT Implementation Deadline
    The EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS require
that, for areas initially classified as Moderate or higher, a state
shall provide for implementation of RACT as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th year after the
effective date of designation (see 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(3)(i)), which
corresponds with the beginning of the attainment year for initially
classified Moderate areas (i.e., January 1, 2023). The modeling and
attainment demonstration requirements for 2015 ozone NAAQS areas
classified Moderate or higher require that a state must provide for
implementation of all control measures needed for attainment no later
than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season, notwithstanding
any alternative deadline established per 40 CFR 51.1312 (see 40 CFR
51.1308(d)). For reclassified areas, the EPA's implementing regulations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS require that the state shall provide for
implementation of RACT as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the start of the attainment year ozone season associated with the
area's new attainment deadline, or January 1 of the third year after
the associated SIP submission deadline, whichever is earlier; or the
deadline established by the Administrator in the final action issuing
the area reclassification (see 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(3)(ii)).
    The EPA requested comment on the proposed January 1, 2023, RACM/
RACT implemented deadline. This proposed deadline is the same as the
single RACT implementation deadline for all areas initially classified
Moderate per 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(3) and would require implementation of
any identified RACM/RACT as early as possible in the attainment year to
influence an area's air quality and 2021-2023 attainment DV. The
proposed RACT implementation deadline would also align with the
proposed SIP submission deadline of January 1, 2023, and ensure that
SIPs requiring control measures needed for attainment, including RACM,
would be submitted no later than when those controls are required to be
implemented. A single deadline for the Moderate area SIP submissions
and RACT implementation would also treat states consistently, in
keeping with CAA section 182(i).
3. I/M Implementation Deadline
    For states that intend to use emission reductions from Basic I/M
programs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed an implementation
deadline of no later than the beginning of the applicable attainment
year, i.e., January 1, 2023. In the case, however, that a state does
not intend to rely upon emission reductions from their I/M program in
attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP) SIPs, the EPA proposed
to allow these I/M programs to be fully implemented no later than 4
years after the effective date of reclassification. The EPA also
requested comment on allowing any newly reclassified areas required to
implement a Basic I/M program (but not needing I/M for attainment or
RFP SIP purposes) to fully implement such a program by no later than
the Moderate area attainment date of August 3, 2024 (September 24,
2024, for the San Antonio area) in order to align the I/M
implementation deadline with that of the other required Moderate area
elements.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 87 FR 21842, 21856 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Responses to Comments and Final Actions

    The public comment period for the EPA's April 2022 proposal closed
on June 13, 2022, and included a public hearing held on May 9, 2022.
The comments received during this period and the public hearing
transcript can be found in the docket for this action. A majority of
commenters supported the EPA's proposal to determine that certain areas
failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
and to reclassify to Moderate the nonattaining areas that do not
qualify for an attainment date extension. Our final actions are
summarized in Table 2 of this action.

                      Table 2--2015 Ozone Marginal Nonattainment Area Final Action Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Extension of the
                                                          Attained by the    Failed to attain    marginal area
             2015 NAAQS nonattainment area                attainment date   by the attainment   attainment date
                                                                                date        to August 3, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan County, MI.....................................  .................                 X   .................
Amador County, CA......................................                 X   .................  .................
Atlanta, GA............................................                 X   .................  .................
Baltimore, MD..........................................  .................                 X   .................
Berrien County, MI.....................................  .................                 X   .................
Chicago, IL-IN-WI......................................  .................                 X   .................
Cincinnati, OH-KY (KY portion).........................  .................                 X   .................
Cleveland, OH..........................................  .................                 X   .................
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX..................................  .................                 X   .................
Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO.....................  .................                 X   .................
Greater Connecticut, CT................................  .................                 X   .................
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX.........................  .................                 X   .................
Louisville, KY-IN (KY portion).........................  .................                 X   .................
Mariposa County, CA....................................  .................                 X   .................
Milwaukee, WI..........................................  .................                 X   .................
Muskegon County, MI....................................  .................                 X   .................
Northern Wasatch Front, UT.............................  .................                 X   .................
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians........  .................                 X   .................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.....  .................                 X   .................
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ.......................................  .................                 X   .................
San Antonio, TX........................................  .................                 X   .................
San Francisco Bay, CA..................................                 X   .................  .................
Sheboygan County, WI...................................  .................                 X   .................
Southern Wasatch Front, UT.............................                 X   .................  .................
St. Louis, MO-IL.......................................  .................                 X   .................
Uinta Basin, UT........................................  .................  .................                 X
Washington, DC-MD-VA...................................  .................                 X   .................
Yuma, AZ...............................................                 X   .................  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is responding to certain key comments in this section of
the preamble. The remaining comments and EPA's responses can be found
in the Response to Comments document, which is found in the docket for
this rulemaking. To access the Response to Comments document, please go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and search for Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0742, or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

A. Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    Pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1303 and
after considering comments received, the EPA is making final
determinations that the Atlanta, GA; Southern Wasatch Front, UT; Amador
County, CA; San Francisco Bay, CA; and Yuma, AZ Marginal nonattainment
areas listed in Table 2 attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date of August 3, 2021. Once effective, this final action
satisfies the EPA's obligation pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to
determine, based on an area's air quality as of the attainment date,
whether the area attained the standard by the applicable attainment
date. The effect of a final determination of attainment by an area's
attainment date is to discharge the EPA's obligation under CAA section
181(b)(2)(A) with respect to that attainment date, and to establish
that, in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the area will not be
reclassified for failure to attain by the applicable attainment date.
    These determinations of attainment do not constitute a
redesignation to attainment as provided for under CAA section
107(d)(3). The EPA may redesignate an area if the state meets
additional statutory criteria, including the EPA approval of a state
plan demonstrating maintenance of the air quality standard for 10 years
after redesignation, as required under CAA section 175A. As for all
NAAQS, the EPA is committed to working with states that choose to
submit redesignation requests for areas that are attaining the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA received adverse comments on our proposed determination of
attainment for the Atlanta area, which are addressed as follows. For a
discussion of additional comments received on the proposal and
responses to those comments, please see the Response to Comments
document in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA is proposing to
determine the Atlanta area as having attained the standard based on its
2019-2021 DV, which the commenter states are exactly at 70 parts per
billion (ppb). The commenter claimed that the years of 2020 and 2021
were characterized by the unusual and unique events related to the
COVID-19 epidemic (including significant reductions in traffic) which
the commenter states could have significantly influenced the ozone
levels in the region. The commenter also stated that another factor
``potentially skewing the averaging is the likely removal of high ozone
days via claims of exceptional events due to the large number of fires
in the western states in 2020, which was among the top five years with
largest wildfire acreage burned since 1960.'' The commenter concluded
by asking the EPA to ``redesignate the Atlanta metro area as a Moderate
NAA [nonattainment area] for the 2015 standard.''
    Response: CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires that the EPA determine
whether an area attained by the attainment date ``based on the area's
design value [DV] (as of the attainment date).'' The DV, as defined and
explained in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix U, refers to the metric that is
used to compare ambient ozone concentration data measured at a site in
order to

determine compliance with the NAAQS. Per 40 CFR 50.19, the 2015 ozone
NAAQS is met when the 3-year DV is less than or equal to 70 ppb (i.e.,
0.070 ppm). Per the CAA and EPA's regulations, the Atlanta area's DV
for the relevant time period (i.e., the 2018-2020 DV, for an attainment
date in 2021) meets the level of the NAAQS, and the area therefore
attained by its applicable attainment date.
    We also note that even though the recorded DV for the 2018-2020
period is at 0.070 ppm, an area's DV is determined by the monitor with
the highest monitored reading. While one monitor in the Atlanta area
recorded a 2018-2020 DV of 0.070 ppm, the remaining monitors in the
area showed 2018-2020 DVs below 0.070 ppm. More recent data indicate
that for the period 2019-2021, the DVs at all of the Atlanta area
monitors are below 0.070 ppm; the highest 2019-2021 DV value for the
Atlanta Area is 0.068 ppm.\9\ To the extent that events related to the
COVID-19 pandemic may have ``significantly influenced the ozone levels
in the region,'' the EPA did not consider such events in this
determination of attainment action, which is based solely on an area's
monitored air quality as of the applicable attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.epa.gov/aqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the commenter's statement that another factor
``potentially skewing the averaging is the likely removal of high ozone
days via claims of exceptional events due to the large number of fires
in the western states in 2020,'' the EPA has not received an
exceptional events request related to ozone data for the Atlanta area.
In order for the EPA to exclude particular periods of ozone monitoring
data from consideration in calculating DVs, the EPA would have to
concur on an exceptional events demonstration from Georgia. The EPA has
not excluded any ozone data from monitors in the Atlanta area via
claims of exceptional events during the 2018-2020 period.
    Finally, the EPA assumes the commenter is asking the EPA to
reclassify (not redesignate) the Atlanta area to Moderate. However,
based on certified 2018-2020 monitored air quality data, because EPA is
determining that the Atlanta area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the
required August 3, 2021, attainment date, the EPA does not have the
authority under the CAA to reclassify the Atlanta area to Moderate for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, unless the area were to voluntarily request that
reclassification under CAA section 181(b)(3).

B. Extension of the Marginal Area Attainment Date

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.1307 and after
considering comments received, the EPA is finalizing its proposal to
grant the Utah Division of Air Quality's (UDAQ) request to extend the
attainment date for the Uinta Basin Marginal area by one year from
August 3, 2021, to August 3, 2022.\10\ In a letter dated May 25, 2021,
the Ute Indian Tribe also requested an attainment date extension for
the area.\11\ Section 181(a)(5) of the CAA provides the EPA the
discretion (i.e., ``the Administrator may'') to extend an area's
applicable attainment date by one additional year upon application by
any state if the state meets the two criteria under CAA section
181(a)(5) as interpreted by the EPA in 40 CFR 51.1307; specifically,
that a state can certify compliance with the applicable SIP and can
demonstrate that, for the first attainment date extension, an area's
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value for the attainment year does
not exceed the level of the standard (0.070 ppm). In proposing to grant
a first attainment date extension for the Uinta Basin area, we
considered additional facts and circumstances, such as air quality
trends and the existing pollution burden in the area, and found that
the additional information did not weigh against our proposal to grant
UDAQ's request.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Bird, Bryce, Director, UDAQ. ``Request for One-year
Extension of the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Attainment Date for the Uinta Basin Marginal Nonattainment Area.''
March 29, 2021.
    \11\ Chapoose, Shaun, Chairman, Ute Indian Tribe Business
Committee. ``Request for One Year Extension of the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Attainment Date for the Uinta
Basin Marginal Nonattainment Area.'' May 25, 2021.
    \12\ See 87 FR 21842, 21848, April 13, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received favorable and adverse comments on its proposal to
grant the 1-year attainment date extension for the Uinta Basin area,
which are addressed as follows. For a discussion of additional comments
received on the proposal and responses to those comments, please see
the Response to Comments document in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposal to grant the 1-
year attainment date extension for the Uinta Basin area, stating that
the area fully met the statutory criteria for the first one-year
extension. The commenter also noted that the area fully meets the
statutory criteria for a second one-year extension requested by UDAQ
and supported by the Ute Indian Tribe, and may attain the 2015 ozone
NAAQS with its 2020-2022 DV. Further, while they appreciated there may
be circumstances where a regulatory decision may include EJ
considerations, the commenter emphasized their hope that future
decisions on the second attainment date extension and potential
redesignation for the Uinta Basin area follow only the ``clear''
requirements set out in the CAA.
    Response: The EPA agrees that UDAQ's request for a first attainment
date extension for the Uinta Basin area met the two qualifying criteria
under CAA section 181(a)(5) as interpreted by the EPA in 40 CFR
51.1307. The status of, and the EPA's future action on, a UDAQ request
for a second extension are outside the scope of this final action;
however, we acknowledge that that the fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour value for 2021 would allow it to meet one of the necessary
criteria to qualify for a second attainment date extension.\13\ We also
agree that the Uinta Basin area could potentially attain the 2015 ozone
standard by a second extended attainment date (August 3, 2023) if the
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration for 2022
remains consistent with the final values for 2020 (0.066 ppm), 0.072
ppm (2021) and, e.g., 0.066 ppm (2022 preliminary) that, when averaged
with the 2020 and 2021 values, would result in an attaining 2020-2022
DV of 0.068 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Uinta Basin area's 2021 fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour value was 0.072 ppm, available at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/download-daily-data. To qualify for a second 1-year
extension, an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value,
averaged over both the original attainment year and the first
extension year, must be 0.070 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.1307(a)(2)).
The fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over 2020
(0.066 ppm) and 2021 (0.072 ppm), is 0.069 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees that the Agency's decision to consider relevant
information in exercising its discretion under a statutory provision is
in any way in contravention of the ``clear'' requirements set out in
the CAA. The requirement at issue in the CAA directs the Administrator
to exercise discretion, establishing two minimum criteria that must be
met before a request for an attainment date extension may be granted.
Therefore, the ``clear'' requirement in the Act is for the
Administrator to exercise judgment, and that exercising of judgment
must, as always, be reasonable and based on relevant facts and factors.
The ultimate goal of Part D of the CAA, which governs planning
requirements for nonattainment areas, and the responsibility of states
and the EPA

under that section of the Act, is to drive progress in nonattainment
areas towards attainment of the NAAQS in order to protect public
health, and to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but by
no later than the attainment dates prescribed by the Act.\14\ CAA
section 181(a)(5) in particular is intended to provide flexibility
where an area is close to achieving attainment and can likely do so
with a bit more time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g. CAA section 171(1) (defining reasonable further
progress as annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant . . . for the purpose of ensuring attainment
of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date''); CAA section
172(a)(2)(A) (establishing attainment dates for the primary NAAQS as
``the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was
designated nonattainment under [107(d)] of this title . . .''); CAA
section 172(c)(1) (requiring implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable and that
plans provide for attainment of the NAAQS); CAA section 172(c)(6)
(requiring state plans to include enforceable emission limitations,
and such other control measures, means or techniques, as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore reasonable, in exercising discretion under CAA
section 181(a)(5), for the EPA to consider facts and circumstances that
are directly relevant to this inquiry, including what current air
quality data indicate about the likelihood of timely attainment in the
area, or likelihood of eligibility for a second extension, and what the
existing public health burden is in the area that would be impacted by
the EPA's decision. The EPA also took note of the source categories and
unique conditions leading to elevated ozone concentrations in the Uinta
Basin area, and the anticipated emission reductions that had the
potential to have a significant impact on ozone concentrations in the
area in the near future. To the extent that the commenter is asserting
that the EPA should interpret CAA section 181(a)(5) to mean that the
EPA must grant a state's request for an extension if the two criteria
are met, we do not agree. The Act says ``may,'' and that word has
meaning.
    Comment: Three commenters opposed the proposed attainment date
extension for the Uinta Basin area. Two of the commenters contended
that the extension should not be granted because the area would not be
able to attain by the extended August 3, 2022, attainment date based on
the 2019-2021 DV of 0.078 ppm and a fourth highest daily maximum value
of 0.072 ppm in 2021, and that granting the request would delay
implementation of needed Moderate area controls. One of the commenters
added that the EPA should not grant the extension request because doing
so would not be based on an identifiable trend toward cleaner air,
documented reductions in the emissions of ozone precursors, or
enforceable controls shown to achieve attainment. Further, they claimed
that the Uinta Basin area attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS by a second
extended attainment date (i.e., August 3, 2023) would not demonstrate
that ozone concentrations in the area will remain low based on concrete
emission reductions or air quality trends that showed consistent
progress toward attainment, but rather because the 2020-2022 DV would
no longer include the 2019 fourth highest daily maximum value of 0.098
ppm. Finally, a third commenter stated that all 1-year extensions
should be denied due to the adverse health impacts of ozone.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. CAA section
181(a)(5) is intended to provide flexibility where an area is close to
achieving attainment and can likely do so with a bit more time. Rather
than require an area to attain the NAAQS by a first extended attainment
date, the provision expressly allows for a maximum of two 1-year
extensions for a single area. Not being able to possibly attain by a
second extended attainment date would weigh against the EPA granting a
first extension request. That is not the case for the Uinta Basin area,
where air quality data indicate that the area can meet the necessary
air quality criterion for a second 1-year extension and could
potentially attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the second extended
attainment date of August 3, 2023. Attainment in 2023 would be based on
the area's 2020-2022 DV, which would necessarily exclude 2019 air
quality data and represent a 3-year air quality trend preceding the
extended attainment date. In our proposal to grant UDAQ's extension
request, we also considered the proposed Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) for Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Sources on Indian
Country Lands within the Uintah and Ouray (U&O) Indian Reservation in
Utah (U&O FIP), which the EPA is working to finalize.\15\ We anticipate
that the new control requirements in the final U&O FIP could make a
meaningful improvement in air quality and address periodic winter ozone
exceedances on the reservation, and in the nonattainment area and
larger Uinta Basin region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Proposed Rule: Federal Implementation Plan for Managing
Emissions From Oil and Natural Gas Sources on Indian Country Lands
Within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah'' (85 FR
3492, January 21, 2020), as discussed at 87 FR 21842, 21848 (April
13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of considerations raised by the commenters--documented
reductions in emissions of ozone precursors and demonstrations that
enforceable controls achieved attainment--are relevant inquiries for
states that are seeking redesignations to attainment. See CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii). By contrast, the CAA mandates that the EPA determine
whether an area attained the NAAQS solely on the basis of the area's DV
as of the attainment date, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and does not
permit the EPA to consider in making that determination how the area
attained or whether the area will continue to attain in making that
determination. Therefore, we decline to consider these factors in
determining whether to grant Utah's request for an attainment date
extension for the Uinta Basin area.

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) and after considering comments
received, the EPA is finalizing the proposed determinations for 22
Marginal nonattainment areas or portions of areas listed in Table 2
that failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of August 3, 2021. Therefore, upon the effective date of this
final action, these 22 areas or portions of areas will be reclassified,
by operation of law, to Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Once
reclassified as Moderate, these areas will be required to attain the
standard ``as expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than 6 years
after the initial designation as nonattainment, which in this case
would be no later than August 3, 2024. If any of these areas attains
the 2015 ozone NAAQS prior to the Moderate area attainment date, the
relevant state may request redesignation to attainment, provided the
state can demonstrate at a minimum that the other criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) are met.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ More information about redesignation is available at
https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/redesignation-and-clean-data-policy-cdp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received adverse comments on its proposal to determine that
certain areas failed to attain by the applicable attainment date and to
reclassify those areas as Moderate, which are addressed as follows. For
a discussion of additional comments received on the proposal and
responses to those comments, please see the Response to

Comments document in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed reclassification of the
Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO area to Moderate, citing extensive
existing state regulations, prior emissions reductions, adverse effects
of the reclassification (permitting burdens, economic impacts, costs
that outweigh benefits), and the role of wildfires/exceptional events
and international transport.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the assertion that the Denver area
should not be reclassified as Moderate. The EPA has a mandatory duty
under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine whether the Denver area
attained by its August 3, 2021, attainment date, based on the area's
design value as of the attainment date. The CAA does not allow the EPA
to consider permitting, economic, or cost impacts in assessing whether
an area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable date. Instead, CAA
section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA to make the determination of
attainment based solely on the area's DV, which is derived entirely
from monitored air quality data.
    Comment: One commenter opposed the EPA's proposal to reclassify the
Wisconsin nonattainment areas from Marginal to Moderate. The commenter
noted that Wisconsin's lakeshore air quality is heavily impacted by
ozone precursors originating from upwind states and asserted that
further actions taken by Wisconsin to address Moderate area planning
requirements are unlikely to significantly improve air quality in
Kenosha County (part of the Chicago area), Sheboygan County, or
Milwaukee areas.
    Response: CAA section 181(b)(2) requires the EPA to determine,
based on an area's ozone design value as of the area's attainment
deadline, whether the area has attained the ozone standard by that
date. The CAA also requires that any area that the EPA finds has not
attained the standard by the attainment deadline shall be reclassified
by operation of law to the higher of the next ``highest''
classification (e.g., Marginal to Moderate, Moderate to Serious, etc.)
or the classification applicable to the area's DV. Further, the
Agency's mandatory duty to make determinations of attainment or failure
to attain the NAAQS exists regardless of the nature or effect of
transported ozone on monitored air quality in a given nonattainment
area. Cf. Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (rejecting
the EPA's decision not to reclassify a downwind nonattainment area that
failed to timely attain due to transported pollution from upwind
states).
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, the 2015 ozone
NAAQS is attained at a monitoring site when the three-year average of
the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone
concentration (i.e., the DV) is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm. When
the DV is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm at each ambient air quality
monitoring site within the area, the area is deemed to be meeting the
NAAQS. If the DV is greater than 0.070 ppm at any site in the area, the
area is deemed to be violating the NAAQS. Because monitoring sites in
the Chicago, Sheboygan County and Milwaukee areas have DVs of 0.079
ppm, 0.077 ppm, and 0.076 ppm, respectively, for the 2018-2020 period,
the EPA must determine that the areas failed to attain the standard by
the August 3, 2021, Marginal attainment deadline and reclassify the
areas as Moderate as required by section 181(b)(2) of the CAA.

D. International Transport and Requirements for CAA Section 179B

    The EPA is finalizing the proposed disapprovals of the CAA section
179B demonstrations submitted by the states of Texas and Utah for the
San Antonio, Texas, and Northern Wasatch Front, Utah, nonattainment
areas, respectively. The EPA interprets CAA section 179B to provide the
EPA with authority to consider impacts from international emissions in
two contexts: (1) A ``prospective'' state demonstration submitted as
part of an attainment plan, which the EPA considers when determining
whether the SIP submission adequately demonstrates that a nonattainment
area will attain the NAAQS by its future attainment date (see CAA
section 179B(a)), but for emissions emanating from outside of the
United States (i.e., international transport); or (2) a
``retrospective'' state demonstration, which the EPA considers when
determining after the attainment date whether a nonattainment area
attained the NAAQS by the attainment date or would have attained but
for international transport (see CAA section 179B(b)-(d)). Any State
that establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that an area
would have attained the national ambient air quality standard by the
applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside of
the United States shall not be subject to reclassification to a higher
classification category. The EPA interprets the statute to require
states to meet all nonattainment area requirements applicable for the
relevant NAAQS and area classification, regardless of any CAA section
179B submission. The EPA provides examples and describes the kinds of
information and analyses that are relevant to this issue to assist air
agencies better understand how to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 179B in the ``Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act
Section 179B Demonstrations for Nonattainment Areas Affected by
International Transport of Emissions'' (CAA Section 179B Guidance).\17\
The guidance also describes the weight of evidence approach that the
EPA uses when evaluating CAA section 179B demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Guidance on the Preparation of Clean Air Act Section 179B
Demonstrations for Nonattainment Areas Affected by International
Transport of Emissions'' issued on December 18, 2020; available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/final_caa_179b_guidance_december_2020_with_disclaimer_ogc.pdf. The
EPA also issued a related notice of availability in the Federal
Register on January 7, 2021 (86 FR 1107).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received adverse comments on our proposed disapprovals of
the CAA section 179B demonstrations from Texas and Utah, which are
addressed as follows. For a discussion of additional comments received
on the proposal and responses to those comments, please see the
Response to Comments document in the docket for this action.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with EPA's authority to consider
impacts from international emissions in two contexts, prospective or
retrospective. The commenter disagreed that the state should have
considered a ``retrospective'' demonstration under CAA section 179B(b)
to address reclassification. The commenter asserted that CAA section
179B(a) was written to cover any NAAQS, and that CAA sections 179B(b-d)
were written to clarify that any CAA section 179B demonstration would
also provide relief to reclassifications that only apply to ozone,
carbon monoxide and particulate matter (PM10). In essence,
the commenter argued that a state can seek to avoid reclassification
for failure to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date under CAA
section 179B(b) at any time, and EPA need not wait for the facts and
analysis to evaluate the impacts of international transport until the
attainment date actually occurs.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation
that a single demonstration would be adequate to obtain the specific
and differing regulatory relief described in CAA section 179B(a)
(relief from the attainment demonstration requirement) and CAA sections
179B(b-d) (relief from

the reclassification requirement). The EPA submitted comments to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on the Bexar County (San
Antonio), Texas CAA section 179B proposal, echoing the CAA section 179B
language and the interpretations expressed in EPA's December 2019 draft
guidance, describing how the State's proposed ``prospective''
demonstration (addressing the standard laid out in CAA section 179B(a)
and focusing on data available to the State in 2019) would not provide
the San Antonio area relief from failing to meet its attainment
deadline. The EPA indicated that the State should develop a
``retrospective'' demonstration under CAA section 179B(b) if seeking
relief from the reclassification requirement.
    As stated in the April 2022 proposal and EPA's final CAA Section
179B Guidance, both the distinct language in CAA sections 179B(a) and
179B(b) and the different regulatory relief those two sections grant
support EPA's interpretation that different types of demonstrations are
needed for areas seeking the different forms of relief. For a state
that is required to submit an attainment plan demonstrating that a
nonattainment area will attain by the applicable attainment date, CAA
section 179B(a) allows the state to submit, and the Administrator to
assess, a demonstration that such a plan ``would be adequate to
attain'' the NAAQS by the attainment date, but for international
transport. For a nonattainment area that has not attained the NAAQS by
the attainment date, and thus is facing reclassification to a higher
classification level, CAA section 179B(b) allows the state to submit,
and the Administrator to assess, a demonstration that the area ``would
have attained'' the NAAQS by the attainment date, but for international
transport. For a state to gain this latter type of relief, the EPA
believes it is reasonable to require that the state include in its
demonstration emissions and air quality data from the 3 years preceding
the attainment date, along with analyses of the amount and nature of
impacts attributed to international transport that actually occurred
during that same relevant period of time.
    Comment: A few commenters asserted that the term ``but for'' under
CAA section 179B is not defined and disagreed with the EPA's
interpretation of that term and requirements for CAA section 179B. A
commenter asserted that its CAA section 179B demonstration should not
have to show that international anthropogenic emissions solely or
primarily cause exceedances. A few commenters indicated that any impact
of international emissions should be enough for an approvable
demonstration. One commenter claimed that the EPA has imposed arbitrary
hurdles on the Northern Wasatch Front nonattainment area to achieve a
successful CAA section 179B demonstration. The commenter alleged that
the EPA's requirements are not supported by the statute and are outside
of Congress's intent. Furthermore, the commenter stated that the EPA's
argument for disapproving Utah's demonstration is inappropriate in
finding that ozone exceedance days ``are predominantly due to local
contributions.'' In addition, they stated that the EPA should find that
a 10-15 percent contribution from international sources to local ozone
in the Northern Wasatch Front meets the CAA ``but for'' criteria. The
commenter disagreed that only sources causing peak ozone concentrations
should matter in the CAA section 179B evaluation. The commenter also
stated that although the CAA establishes the ``but for'' test, the
statute makes no differentiation between base contributions or peak
contributions. The commenter claimed that by the EPA considering
whether international contributions are greater on exceedance days than
on non-exceedance days, the EPA suggests that the influence of
international emissions on Northern Wasatch Front ozone must be event-
based rather than continuous and the commenter states that this line of
reasoning is inconsistent with the scientific literature cited by the
EPA. The commenter also asserted that the EPA is inappropriately
requiring a large international contribution relative to the domestic
contribution for a valid CAA section 179B demonstration and referenced
the EPA's response to comment for the CAA Section 179B Guidance to
support the argument that the EPA did not intend this to be a
requirement at the time of the issuance of the Guidance.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``Review Of Draft CAA Section 179B Guidance On
International Emissions,'' CAA Section 179B Guidance Briefing for
OMB; September 16, 2020; p. 2; attachment to email dated November
18, 2020, from Gobeail McKinley to Elke L. Hodson Marten
transmitting responses to interagency comments on the CAA Section
179B Guidance Document; located in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0668 at regulations.gov (accessed on June 9, 2022) (``Response to
Comment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters concerning the
appropriate application of CAA section 179B, and in particular the
appropriate interpretation of the term ``but for'' in this specific
context. As acknowledged by the commenters, CAA section 179B is notably
silent on the definition of ``but for.'' Specifically, the statute does
not define ``but for,'' nor does it define what criteria the EPA should
use to evaluate whether a state has demonstrated the relevant statutory
criteria to the ``satisfaction of the Administrator.'' Given the
ambiguous statutory text, the EPA has authority to interpret the term
``but for'' in the way most consistent with the purpose of CAA section
179B. Given the statute's explicit inclusion of the phrase ``to the
satisfaction of the Administrator,'' the EPA concludes that this can
entail what the Agency considers relevant for this type of
demonstration. For example, the EPA reasonably interprets the language
in CAA section 179B to authorize it to differentiate between base and
peak contributions in exercising its technical judgment in assessing
CAA section 179B demonstrations made by states. This distinction is
very relevant when determining the degree to which international
transport affects ambient pollutant levels during periods that are
relevant to determining attainment. The commenter intimated that when
ambient concentrations minus modeled international contributions are
less than the level of the NAAQS, the state should automatically
receive CAA section 179B relief. The EPA does not agree with this
``simple subtraction'' interpretation of ``but for,'' which would
ignore the complex nature of ozone sources and transport, as well as
the multitude of analysis methods and tools which states and the EPA
may use to evaluate and characterize sources impacting ozone
concentrations at violating monitors. In addition, this simplistic
interpretation of ``but for'' would in effect functionally raise the
level of the NAAQS in all areas of the country for which states claim
that there is international transport, regardless of what any other
facts or analyses would indicate about the nature and impacts of such
transport.\19\ Given the statutory directive to the EPA to promulgate
NAAQS that are adequately protective of public health with an ample
margin of safety, the EPA does not consider a ``simple subtraction''
approach to be appropriate.\20\ Rather, the EPA has

provided the CAA section 179B Guidance to give recommendations for a
more comprehensive weight of evidence approach, which states and EPA
should use to evaluate international emissions contributions at
violating ozone monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Given that international emissions contribute some amount
to background ozone across all locations in the US and that this
fact was understood when the 179B provision of the CAA was written,
a ``simple subtraction'' interpretation would be akin to adding the
ozone increment associated with the typical international
contribution to the level of the NAAQS.
    \20\ The EPA considers background ozone when setting the NAAQS.
(80 FR 65291, October 26, 2015) The EPA is aware that international
emissions contribute partially to background ozone across the United
States. It is clear from the legislative history that Congress
intended for CAA section 179B to be limited in scope for situations
where international transport is a particular problem and not
applicable to situations where international emissions are merely
part of the normal background level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we stated in the proposal, ``[g]iven the extensive number of
technical factors and meteorological conditions that can affect
international transport of air pollution, EPA relies on the weight of
evidence of all information and analyses provided by the air agency.
The appropriate level of supporting documentation will vary on a case-
by-case basis, depending on the nature and severity of international
influence. EPA considers and qualitatively weighs all evidence based on
its relevance to CAA section 179B and the nature of international
contributions as described in the demonstration's conceptual model.
Every demonstration should include fact-specific analyses tailored to
the nonattainment area in question. When a CAA section 179B
demonstration shows that international contributions are larger than
domestic contributions, the weight of evidence will be more compelling
than if the demonstration shows domestic contributions exceeding
international contributions.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 87 FR 21842, 21852 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as explained in the proposal, there are four
characteristics that the EPA thinks indicate that an area needs a more
involved weight of evidence showing: (1) Affected monitors not located
near an international border; (2) Specific international sources and/or
their contributing emissions are not identified or are difficult to
identify; (3) Exceedances on internationally influenced days are in the
range of typical exceedances attributable to local sources; and (4)
Exceedances occurred in association with other processes and sources of
pollutants, or on days where meteorological conditions were conducive
to local pollutant formation (e.g., for ozone, clear skies and elevated
temperatures). The San Antonio and Northern Wasatch Front nonattainment
areas meet all four of these characteristics suggesting the need for a
comprehensive weight of evidence showing, including multiple lines of
evidence to support a CAA section 179B demonstration in these areas.
The EPA recognizes that no single analysis is sufficient to support or
refute a CAA section 179B demonstration definitively. Therefore, the
Agency utilized multiple lines of evidence in the proposed disapproval
of the submitted CAA section 179B demonstrations, which, taken
together, provided a consistent and coherent conceptual model that did
not support a ``but for'' finding for these areas. The EPA disagrees
that the analyses the Agency recommended in the CAA section 179B
Guidance and the Agency relied upon in evaluation are arbitrary or not
supported by the statute.
    Further, the EPA's 179B Guidance indicated that a demonstration
will be stronger when international contributions are shown to be
greater on NAAQS exceedance days than on non-exceedance days. Inclusion
of this information will make it easier to differentiate locally versus
internationally driven exceedances. However, the above interpretation
from the Section 179B Guidance should not be considered as requiring
that international contributions be restricted to contributions from
specific international transport events. Rather, the CAA section 179B
Guidance and the April 2022 proposal point to the need for a more
detailed demonstration in cases where international contributions are
difficult to distinguish from US contributions, including when
``[e]xceedances on internationally influenced days are in the range of
typical exceedances attributable to local sources.'' In addition, as
part of a thorough evaluation of the impacts of international
transport, the EPA considers it appropriate to focus on analyzing the
contributions on the days that contribute to an area's NAAQS violation.
    Comment: A commenter claimed that the EPA used one criterion (i.e.,
whether feasible measures have been implemented) in the Northern
Wasatch Front determination that the EPA had already rejected in a
prior rulemaking \22\ as not being part of a CAA section 179B
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. The comment seems to
conflate the requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) that areas classified
as Moderate and higher must show that they have implemented RACM/RACT
with the EPA's statements in the proposal that Utah's demonstration
would have been strengthened through a showing that the state had
attempted to implement feasible controls. The EPA explained that the
proposed disapproval of the CAA section 179B demonstration for the
Wasatch area relied on multiple lines of evidence. As noted in the
technical support document (TSD) for the proposed disapproval of this
CAA section 179B demonstration, the state did not make a compelling
demonstration that it has implemented controls to mitigate local
emissions contributing to ozone levels on exceedance days. Because each
nonattainment area is unique, the types of analyses that would be
appropriate for any particular area depend on area-specific factors.
The EPA considers the weight of available evidence in assessing a
state's CAA section 179B demonstration. The EPA considered the fact
that the state has not attempted to implement reasonable local controls
along with information indicating whether ozone exceedances had
occurred predominantly as a result of emissions from local sources
versus international sources. Imposition of local control measures is
not a prerequisite or requirement to a Marginal area's CAA section
179B(b) demonstration. However, consideration of whether feasible
controls have been implemented in an area could be a significant factor
relative to information characterizing the nature of contributions on
exceedance days. Such control measure information is therefore helpful
in considering to what extent local versus international emissions
contributed to ozone exceedances in the Northern Wasatch Front.
    Comment: A commenter stated that states would benefit from further
clarification of the CAA Section 179B Guidance and a concerted effort
from the EPA to codify its CAA section 179B(b) interpretation through
rulemaking.
    Response: This action is to fulfill our statutory obligation under
CAA section 181 by determining whether 28 Marginal ozone nonattainment
areas attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by August 3, 2021, the applicable
attainment date for such areas. As part of the final disapproval for
the San Antonio and Northern Wasatch Front CAA section 179B
demonstrations, this rulemaking action is intended to clarify EPA's
interpretations of CAA section 179B and apply them to certain areas of
the country through regulatory action. The EPA does not intend to
initiate a public notice-and-comment rulemaking to codify the
provisions of CAA section 179B at this time.

E. Moderate Area SIP Submission and Controls Implementation Deadlines

    Pursuant to CAA section 182(i) and after considering comments
received, the EPA is finalizing its proposed

deadlines for Moderate area SIP revisions, and implementation of RACM/
RACT and Basic I/M programs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. SIP revisions
required for the newly reclassified Moderate areas must be submitted no
later than January 1, 2023, and RACM/RACT for these areas must be
implemented as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the same
date. We acknowledge that for some states with reclassified Moderate
areas, meeting a January 1, 2023, SIP submission and RACM/RACT
implementation deadline will be challenging. However, the options for
establishing deadlines within the CAA framework of attainment
timeframes and RACT implementation requirements are constrained. We
also recognize there are ways to anticipate and manage the tight
timeframes for SIP development and submission, such as advance planning
based on preliminary area DVs. Also, a state may at any time request--
and the EPA must grant--a voluntary reclassification under CAA section
181(b)(3). The EPA remains committed to working closely with affected
states to help them prepare their SIP revisions in a timely manner.
    For required Basic I/M programs, the EPA is finalizing an
implementation deadline of no later than 4 years after the effective
date of reclassification for states that do not intend to rely upon
emission reductions from their Basic I/M program in attainment or RFP
SIPs. As discussed in the April 2022 proposal, the EPA realizes that
implementing a brand new or revised I/M program on an accelerated
timeline may be difficult to achieve in practice, especially for states
with no I/M programs elsewhere within their jurisdiction.
    The EPA received adverse comments on our proposed deadlines, which
are addressed as follows. For a discussion of additional comments
received on the proposal and responses to those comments, please see
the Response to Comments document in the docket for this action.
    Comment: Regarding the proposed January 1, 2023, SIP submission
deadline for reclassified Moderate areas, the EPA received comments
stating that the deadline was unreasonable, and/or the resulting
compressed timeframe provided insufficient time for SIP development,
with some commenters also noting that the EPA's delayed rulemaking in
this action has contributed to the planning burden on states. Two
commenters observed that the proposed deadline would be less than 12
months from final area reclassifications, with one commenter contending
the EPA has long held that one year from final reclassification was an
appropriate SIP submission deadline, and both commenters referencing
the previous determination and reclassification action for Moderate
areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS as an example. One other commenter
requested a SIP submission deadline of May 1, 2023, and two other
commenters requested that the EPA provide the same planning timeframes
allowed for initially designated areas (e.g., 2 years for RACT SIPs, 3
years for RFP and attainment demonstration SIPs). Two additional
commenters did not request a specific deadline but were concerned that
the proposed submission deadline was unachievable given the timing and
time demands of state legislative processes, e.g., the Colorado General
Assembly does not convene until mid-January each year, and the
Connecticut regulatory adoption process generally takes 10-12 months
and requires the approval of a legislative committee.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the short planning timeframe
available to states with newly reclassified Moderate areas, and that
delays in this rulemaking have reduced the time between the effective
date of final area reclassifications and the proposed January 1, 2023,
deadlines for SIP submissions for these areas. We further acknowledge
that the available timeframe here will present significant challenges
for many states. But we believe that our approaches for establishing
SIP submission deadlines in prior determination and reclassification
actions were case-specific and, while informative, are not
determinative of our final action here. Of potential alternatives, we
maintain that the deadline established in this final action best
provides for consistent treatment of states in submitting SIP revisions
within the constraints of attainment timeframes and RACT requirements
under the Act. Further, to the extent that commenters suggested that
states are confined to initiating SIP development activities only after
the EPA finalizes its attainment determinations and area
reclassifications, we disagree, as there are proactive and voluntary
pathways by which states can anticipate and manage the tight timeframes
to develop required SIP revisions for reclassified nonattainment areas.
The EPA addresses specific aspects of commenters' concerns as follows.
    Responding to comments that the January 1, 2023, deadline for SIP
submissions for reclassified Moderate areas is unreasonable and/or
provides insufficient time for state planning activities, we look to
the statutory framework and context underlying our legal and policy
basis. Areas initially classified as Moderate under the 2015 ozone
NAAQS were required to prepare and submit SIP revisions by deadlines
relative to the effective date of the nonattainment designation (i.e.,
August 3, 2018), which ranged from 2 to 3 years after the effective
date of designation (e.g., 2 years for the RACT SIP, and 3 years for
the attainment plan with RACM and attainment demonstration). These SIP
submission deadlines preceded the RACT implementation deadline (i.e.,
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1 of the 5th
year after the effective date of designations) and have the practical
effect of ensuring that SIPs requiring control measures needed for
attainment, including RACM, would be submitted prior to when those
controls are required to be implemented--in this case, no later than
the beginning of the Moderate area attainment year. i.e., January 1,
2023.
    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that within 6 months
following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine
whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard, and
those areas that failed to attain and were not granted a 1-year
attainment date extension are reclassified by operation of law.
Although Congress did not articulate specific SIP submission deadlines
for reclassified areas in the Act, it provided the EPA with authority
under CAA section 182(i) to adjust any related deadlines for
requirements under CAA sections 182(b) through (d) ``. . . to the
extent such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure
consistency among the required submissions.'' Explicitly excluded from
CAA section 182(i) is authority to adjust attainment dates, i.e., ``. .
. the Administrator may adjust any applicable deadlines (other than
attainment dates) . . .''.
    The area classifications and attainment date framework established
in Table 1 of CAA section 181(a)(1) and interpreted by 40 CFR 51.1303
inherently constrains the planning and implementation timeframe for
reclassified areas, particularly at lower area classifications. The
time increments between the Marginal and Moderate, and the Moderate and
Serious area statutory attainment dates are only three years. These
short timeframes are further constrained by the RACT implementation
deadline for reclassified areas. Consistent with the RACT requirements
of 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(3)(ii), the EPA proposed a RACT implementation
deadline for

reclassified Moderate areas corresponding with the beginning of the
Moderate area attainment year (i.e., January 1, 2023). Aligning the
RACT implementation and SIP submission deadline for reclassified areas
ensures that SIPs requiring control measures needed for attainment,
including RACM, are submitted no later than when those controls are
required to be implemented.\23\ The combination of constraints dictated
by the statutory and regulatory requirements for reclassified ozone
areas, particularly at the lower classifications, are a primary cause
of the compressed timeframe for SIP development and implementation.
Even if the EPA had published this final determination and
reclassification action by the statutory due date (i.e., February 3,
2022) with an effective date 30 days after (i.e., approximately March
7, 2022) there still would be less than a year between the effective
date and the SIP submission deadline of January 1, 2023. We recognize
that many areas may face difficulty in meeting the submission and
implementation deadlines in the final rule, but this approach is
consistent with the CAA and our regulations, and given the competing
considerations, is a reasonable exercise of the EPA's discretion under
CAA section 182(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 87 FR 21842, 21856 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters observed that the proposed deadline would be less
than 12 months from final area reclassifications, with one commenter
asserting that the EPA has long held that an appropriate deadline for
states with reclassified areas to submit required SIP revisions is one
year from final reclassification. Both commenters referenced the EPA's
August 2019 final determination action that reclassified certain areas
from Moderate to Serious for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and established a SIP
submission deadline in August 2020. While we acknowledge that the short
timeframe for SIP submittal here will present significant challenges
for many states, we disagree with the commenter's general assertion
that establishing a one-year SIP submission timeframe is a ``long
held'' approach for the EPA. To this end, we wish to note multiple
instances of the EPA establishing a SIP submission deadline of less
than one year from the effective date of the final determination and
reclassification action, e.g., for four reclassified Moderate areas
under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Final actions for the four
reclassified Moderate areas--Imperial County, California; Atlanta,
Georgia; Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana--
established a SIP submission deadline corresponding with the beginning
of the Moderate area attainment year (i.e., December 31, 2008, or
January 1, 2009) and approximately eight months from the final action
effective date.\24\ SIP revisions for reclassified Moderate and Serious
areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS were due approximately seven and ten
months from the final action effective dates, respectively.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See final determination and reclassification actions for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Imperial County, CA (73 FR 8209,
February 13, 2008); Atlanta, GA (73 FR 12013, March 6, 2008);
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX (73 FR 14391, March 18, 2008); and Baton
Rouge, LA (73 FR 15087, March 21, 2008).
    \25\ See 81 FR 26697, 26704 (May 4, 2016) and 84 FR 44238, 44245
(August 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA acknowledges that the referenced determination and
reclassification action for Moderate areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
established a SIP submission deadline for reclassified Serious areas of
approximately one year from the final action. In that instance, the SIP
submission deadline (August 3, 2020) was approximately 11 months from
the final action effective date (September 23, 2019). However, we
consider the final action for reclassified Serious areas under the 2008
ozone NAAQS distinguishable from this current action because the EPA
proposed a SIP submission deadline of 12 months from the final action
effective date, but was persuaded by comments received to finalize an
aligned deadline of August 3, 2020, which corresponded with the RACT
SIP submission deadline for areas initially classified Moderate and
higher for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA's rationale, pursuant to the
authority of CAA section 182(i), was to provide for ``consistency among
submissions'' due from a nonattainment area for more than one NAAQS,
which could also allow states to save limited resources by
consolidating two SIP submissions into a single submission.\26\ That
situation does not exist for this current action and, while previous
determination and reclassification actions may be informative, the EPA
considers them to be case-specific and not necessarily determinative of
our final rule approach for reclassified Moderate areas under the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The timeframes for the prior actions discussed here, as
for the present action, were informed by the attainment date, and the
different submission deadlines necessarily considered the time between
the establishing action and the applicable attainment date. This
timeframe varies across actions, and we cannot here apply a longer
timeframe from a previous action if it would not be allowed by the
applicable attainment date for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 84 FR 44238, 44246 (August 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters requested that EPA establish a later SIP
submission deadline for reclassified Moderate areas, with one commenter
requesting a specific date of May 1, 2023, and two commenters
requesting deadlines that would provide the same planning timeframes
allowed for initially designated areas. Two additional commenters did
not request a specific deadline but were concerned that the proposed
submission deadline was unachievable given the timing and time demands
of state legislative processes. As discussed previously, Congress did
not articulate specific SIP submission deadlines for reclassified areas
in the Act, and it required that states submit all SIP revisions for
initially designated Moderate areas (including RACT and the attainment
plan with RACM and attainment demonstration) before their RACT
implementation deadline, which is as expeditiously as practicable but
no later than January 1, 2023. Further, as discussed in the proposed
action, the EPA does not find it appropriate to provide deadlines of 2
and 3 years from the effective date of a final action on this
determination, as those deadlines would fall after the Moderate area
attainment date of August 3, 2024.\27\ The January 1, 2023, submission
deadline for reclassified Moderate areas may not be compatible with
some state legislative processes, but nowhere in Subpart 2 did Congress
indicate that state legislative processes or calendars should dictate,
or even factor into, deadlines for CAA NAAQS implementation. The EPA
maintains that establishing the selected SIP submission deadline
ensures consistent treatment of states, consistency among SIP
submissions, and balances the other considerations relevant to ozone
attainment planning such as attainment dates and existing regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 87 FR 21842, 21855 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge again that meeting this SIP submission deadline will
be challenging for many states, and that delays in this rulemaking have
reduced the time between the effective date of this final action and
the deadline for submission and implementation. However, to the extent
that commenters suggested that states can only initiate SIP development
activities only after the EPA finalizes its attainment determinations
and area reclassifications, we disagree. There are

proactive and voluntary pathways by which states can anticipate and
manage the tight timeframes to develop required SIP revisions for
reclassified nonattainment areas, including early planning and
voluntary reclassification. The EPA is aware that many states with
areas affected by this current action may be constrained in finalizing
rulemakings that require additional emissions controls unless the state
air agency can demonstrate such controls were mandated by an underlying
federal requirement (e.g., required pursuant to a mandatory area
reclassification). However, to our knowledge most states with affected
areas are not prohibited from starting their SIP development activities
before the EPA finalizes this current action. As we noted in our 2019
attainment determination and reclassification action for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, states with Moderate areas that were proposed for
reclassification as Serious had known with a reasonable amount of
certainty that revised SIPs would be due in the near future to provide
for expeditious attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and had the
opportunity to make progress on plan development activities before
issuance of the final action.\28\ That remains true for this current
action, where states with affected Marginal areas have been aware of
preliminary 2018-2020 DVs since at least December 2020 and could have
reasonably anticipated that SIP revisions for reclassified Moderate
areas would again be due in the near future, consistent with previous
EPA determination and reclassification actions. Nonetheless, the EPA
recognizes the challenges posed by the aligned SIP submission and RACT
implementation deadline of January 1, 2023, and is committed to working
closely with states to help them as they prepare SIP revisions in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 84 FR 44238, 44246 (August 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also notes that voluntary reclassification provides another
way for states to anticipate and manage the tight timeframes for SIP
development for nonattainment areas. An air agency can request--and the
EPA must grant--a voluntary reclassification under CAA section
181(b)(3), which resets the area's attainment date into the future, and
would therefore likely provide more time and flexibility for developing
and submitting required SIP revisions. Of particular benefit for states
is the longer timeframe to prepare RACT analyses and adopt SIP
revisions for voluntarily reclassified areas, which could result in
states determining that additional controls are reasonable and in turn
help expedite air quality improvements in these areas.
    Comment: Regarding the proposed January 1, 2023, RACT
implementation deadline for reclassified Moderate areas, the EPA
received comments stating that the deadline was unreasonable, and/or
the resulting compressed timeframe provided insufficient time for RACT
SIP development and implementation by affected sources. One commenter
generally agreed with the EPA that measures necessary to advance
attainment should be implemented by the beginning of ozone season in
the attainment year but, along with other commenters, contended it
would be difficult for sources to timely procure needed materials and/
or install new controls. Some commenters also noted that RACT
implementation could be hindered by current supply chain issues
stemming from, e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic. Two commenters supported
RACT implementation deadlines corresponding with the start of the
Moderate area attainment year ozone season for their respective areas
(March 1, 2023, and May 1, 2023), and one commenter requested that
states be afforded the RACT implementation timeframe for initially
designated areas, i.e., as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than January 1 of the fifth year after the effective date of
designations. Another commenter contended that the January 1, 2023,
deadline would limit RACM and RACT to only those measures that are
already on the books or well into the adoption process. The same
commenter further characterized the RACT requirement for their
reclassified Moderate area as administrative and without environmental
benefit because the proposed RACT timeline would limit them to merely
certifying the adequacy their recent 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT evaluation
for purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Response: As discussed in the preceding response to comments
regarding submission deadlines, the EPA considers the compressed
planning and RACT implementation timeframe for reclassified Moderate
areas to dictated, to some degree, by the area classifications and
attainment date framework established in the CAA. The regulatory RACT
implementation deadline for reclassified areas, which is no later than
the start of the area's attainment year ozone season, creates further
constraints. In consideration of CAA section 182(i)'s direction that
the EPA consider ``consistency among the required submissions'' and the
EPA's interpretation that that provision may refer in part to similarly
situated Marginal areas across the country subject to reclassification,
the EPA did not propose, and is not finalizing an approach that would
establish different RACM/RACT implementation deadlines corresponding to
an area's defined ozone season starting month. We instead proposed, and
are finalizing, a consistent, nationally applicable RACM/RACT
implementation deadline for all newly reclassified Moderate areas
corresponding with the beginning of the applicable attainment year,
i.e., January 1, 2023, which is also the same as the single RACT
implementation deadline for all areas initially classified Moderate
under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA maintains that this single deadline
would provide for implementation of any identified RACM/RACT as early
as possible in the attainment year to influence an area's air quality
and 2021-2023 attainment DV and also treat states consistently, in
keeping with CAA section 182(i). We do not think a RACT implementation
deadline of as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1
of the fifth year after the effective date of this final action, as one
commenter requested, is appropriate or reasonable, because that
deadline would not only fall after the Moderate area attainment date of
August 3, 2024, but also after the Serious area attainment date of
August 3, 2027. Such a deadline would not serve the CAA's goal of
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS by no later than the attainment
date.
    The EPA recognizes that measures that states identify as
``reasonably available'' and that affected sources must implement are
directly tied to the amount of time provided by the EPA in establishing
a due date within the statutory and regulatory constraints discussed
previously. Therefore, as one commenter described, the January 1, 2023,
submission and implementation deadline could limit RACM and RACT to
measures that are already on the books or well into the state's
adoption process, and might not generate additional emission
reductions. However, delaying the implementation deadline for RACT will
not make it more likely that the area will attain by its attainment
date. The deadline the EPA is finalizing is already the beginning of
the last year in which any emission reductions could influence an
area's DV as of their next attainment date. So, to the extent that
commenters do not think it will be possible to implement any controls
beyond what is already on the books or well into the adoption process,
but recognizes that additional controls are necessary for

that area to reach attainment, those states, as discussed previously,
may exercise their option to request a voluntary reclassification,
which the EPA must approve. The EPA cannot, under the CAA, reclassify
areas that it knows will not attain or are unlikely to attain by the
attainment date; but states are fully within their rights to recognize
this and put themselves in a better position for longer planning and
implementation timeframes.
    Importantly, as the commenter noted, RACT for reclassified Moderate
areas could include adopted and in-progress measures that were
initiated independent of the EPA's current determination and
reclassification action for 2015 ozone Marginal areas. This highlights
an important principle underlying the CAA, namely that of ``cooperative
federalism'' where, in partnership with the EPA, states and local
governments have the primary responsibility for the control of air
pollution at its source (see CAA section 101(a)(3)). Marginal areas do
not have a statutory obligation to determine and implement RACM/RACT,
as required for areas classified as Moderate or higher; however, the
CAA does not prevent states with Marginal areas from adopting ``SIP
strengthening'' measures that improve air quality but do not address a
specific CAA requirement and may potentially be determined as RACT
pursuant to a mandatory area reclassification. As discussed in the
preceding response to comments, we are aware that states with
reclassified Moderate areas may be constrained in finalizing
rulemakings that require additional emissions controls unless the state
air agency can demonstrate an underlying federal requirement but, for
many areas, states have had significant lead time to initiate SIP
development based on their knowledge of preliminary 2018-2020 DVs and
reasonable anticipation that SIP revisions would be due in the near
future.
    Comment: The EPA received two comments on the 4-year timeframe to
implement new or revised I/M programs not tied to attainment. One
commenter supported allowing up to four years to implement new I/M
programs. The second commenter noted that a 4-year implementation
timeline for I/M may be ambitious given the considerable community
outreach and public education efforts that are necessary to start up a
program that potentially impacts so many individuals. The commenter
urged the EPA to give states more than four years to fully implement an
I/M program.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the unique nature of I/M programs
and that there are many challenges, tasks, and milestones when
establishing and implementing a new or revised I/M program. For the
reasons described in the April 2022 proposal, the EPA continues to
maintain that a deadline of up to four years is reasonable and is using
our authority under CAA section 182(i) to grant this flexibility to
those areas required to implement I/M under this final rule but are not
intending to rely on the I/M program for attainment or RFP reductions.
    Comment: One commenter noted the EPA should clarify what technical
assistance will be provided for I/M programs and when it will be
provided.
    Response: As stated in the NPRM, the EPA intends to provide
technical assistance and guidance for I/M programs in affected ozone
nonattainment areas. The EPA encourages states to contact their EPA
Regional Office early in the I/M SIP development process. In addition,
the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality continues to provide
I/M guidance; see the EPA's I/M website at www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/vehicle-emissions-inspection-and-maintenance-im.

III. Environmental Justice (EJ) Impacts

    As discussed in Section II.B of this notice, the EPA is finalizing
its proposal to grant a request for a 1-year attainment date extension
for the Uinta Basin, Utah, nonattainment area and extend the August 3,
2021, Marginal area attainment date to August 3, 2022, based on our
finding that the state meets the two criteria under CAA section
181(a)(5) as interpreted by the EPA in 40 CFR 51.1307 and additional
considerations do not weigh against our decision to grant UDAQ's
request. For example, the EPA conducted an EJSCREEN analysis for the
area to evaluate whether communities in the Uinta Basin area may be
exposed to disproportionate pollution burdens. The results of our
screening analysis did not indicate disproportionate exposure or
burdens with respect to the non-ozone environmental indicators assessed
in EJSCREEN.
    As discussed in Section II.E of this notice and the April 2022
proposal, a Basic vehicle I/M SIP is required for urbanized Moderate
areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including for areas with and without
an existing I/M program that may have been implemented to meet the CAA
requirements for a previous ozone NAAQS. I/M programs ensure that
vehicles are operating according to the EPA's vehicle emissions
standards and adequately protecting public health. However, any Basic
I/M program for the 2015 ozone NAAQS may present potential economic
hardship and other concerns for low-income individuals of newly
reclassified Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, and we encourage
states that are not already providing vehicle repair or replacement
assistance programs to work with interested parties in their
nonattainment areas to address such concerns.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it responds to the CAA requirement to determine
whether areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS attained the
standard by the applicable attainment date, and to take certain steps
for areas that failed to attain.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. This action does not contain any information collection
activities and serves only to make final: (1) determinations that
certain Marginal nonattainment areas listed in Table 2 attained the
2015 ozone standards by the August 3, 2021 attainment date; (2)
approval to grant a certain Marginal nonattainment area listed in Table
2 a 1-year attainment date extension from the August 3, 2021,
attainment date to August 3, 2022; (3) determinations that certain
Marginal nonattainment areas listed in Table 2 failed to attain the
2015 ozone standards by the August 3, 2021, attainment date (September
24, 2021, for San Antonio, Texas) where such areas will be reclassified
as Moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standards by operation of
law upon the effective date of the final reclassification action; and
(4) adjust any applicable implementation deadlines.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
determinations of attainment and failure to attain the 2015 ozone
standards (and resulting reclassifications), and the final approval to
grant 1-year attainment date extensions do not in and of themselves
create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.
Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does
not directly regulate any entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The
division of responsibility between the federal government and the
states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the
CAA.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
    The EPA has identified tribal areas within the nonattainment areas
covered by this rulemaking, that would be potentially affected by this
final action. Specifically, eight of the nonattainment areas addressed
in this final action have tribes located within their boundaries:
Amador, California (Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians), Berrien
County, Michigan (Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians), Greater
Connecticut, Connecticut (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan
Indian Tribe), Northern Wasatch Front, Utah (Skull Valley Band of
Goshute Indians), Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona (Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Salt
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, and
Tohono O'odham Nation), San Francisco, California (Lytton Rancheria),
Uinta Basin, Utah (Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation),
and Yuma, Arizona (Cocopah Tribe and Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation). One of the nonattainment areas addressed in this
document is a separate tribal nonattainment area (Pechanga Band of
Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation).
    The EPA has concluded that the final rule may have tribal
implications for these tribes for the purposes of Executive Order 13175
but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor
would it preempt tribal law. As noted in our proposed rule, a tribe
that is part of an area that is reclassified from Marginal to Moderate
nonattainment is not required to submit a tribal implementation plan
revision to address new Moderate area requirements.\29\ However, the
NNSR major source threshold and offset requirements will change for
stationary sources seeking preconstruction permits in any nonattainment
areas newly reclassified as Moderate (Section II.D.1 of this notice),
including on tribal lands within these nonattainment areas. Areas that
are already classified Moderate for a previous ozone NAAQS are already
subject to these higher offset ratios and lower thresholds, so a
reclassification to Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS would have no
effect on NNSR permitting requirements for tribal lands in those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 87 FR 21842, 21846 (April 13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has communicated or intends to communicate with the
potentially affected tribes located within the boundaries of the
nonattainment areas addressed in this final action, including offering
government-to-government consultation, as appropriate.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this determination is contained in Section III of
this preamble, ``Environmental Justice (EJ) Impacts.''

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for specific
entities and does not directly regulate any entities. The
determinations of attainment and failure to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(and resulting reclassifications), and the approval to grant 1-year
attainment date extensions do not in themselves create any new
requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.

L. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally

applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.'' For
locally or regionally applicable final actions, the CAA reserves to the
EPA complete discretion whether to invoke the exception in (ii).
    This final action is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning
of CAA section 307(b)(1). In this final action, the EPA is applying a
uniform process and standard to areas across the country to make
determinations regarding attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the
majority of areas that are designated and classified as Marginal
nonattainment for these NAAQS. All listed areas that have failed to
attain by the Marginal area attainment date \30\ are reclassified to
Moderate upon the effective date of this final action and are subject
to the same deadlines established pursuant to CAA section 182(i) for
revising state implementation plans and implementing control
requirements associated with the Moderate area classification. The
nonattainment areas subject to this final rulemaking are located in 19
states and the District of Columbia, nine of the ten EPA regions, and
the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and D.C.
Circuits. Given that on its face this action addresses areas in states
located across a wide geographic area, and uses common, nationwide
analytical methods the EPA consistently applies when making
determinations regarding attainment, acting on attainment date
extension requests, acting on international transport demonstrations
submitted to relieve states of otherwise-applicable reclassification
requirements, and adjusting deadlines for all newly reclassified areas,
this is a ``nationally applicable'' action within the meaning of CAA
section 307(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ These areas include the Northern Wasatch Front, UT area and
the San Antonio, TX area because the EPA is disapproving the CAA
section 179B demonstrations from those two states, consistent with
its CAA section 179B Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this final action
to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator is exercising
the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and
publish a finding that this action is based on a determination of
``nationwide scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1).\31\ In deciding to invoke this exception, the Administrator
has taken into account a number of policy considerations, including his
judgment regarding the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's
authoritative centralized review, rather than allowing development of
the issue in other contexts, in order to ensure consistency in the
Agency's approach to implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the
majority of the nonattainment areas nationwide that are classified
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This final action treats all of the
identified Marginal nonattainment areas consistently, in making
determinations of whether areas attained by the attainment date, in
acting on requests for extensions, in evaluating demonstrations under
CAA section 179B, and in reclassifying areas as Moderate and
establishing consistent deadlines for all of these areas to submit and
implement control measures and other plan elements required for
Moderate areas. The Administrator finds that this is a matter on which
national uniformity is desirable to take advantage of the D.C.
Circuit's administrative law expertise and facilitate the orderly
development of the basic law under the Act. The Administrator also
finds that consolidated review of this action in the D.C. Circuit will
avoid piecemeal litigation in the regional circuits, further judicial
economy, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent results for different
states. The Administrator also finds that a nationally consistent
approach to the CAA's mandate concerning reclassification of areas that
fail to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS constitutes the best use of agency
resources. The Administrator is publishing his finding that this action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect in the
Federal Register as part of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised CAA
section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323-24, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, this final action is nationally applicable or,
alternatively, the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion
afforded to him by the CAA and finds that this final action is based on
a determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA
section 307(b)(1) and is publishing that finding in the Federal
Register. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 6, 2022.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 81, title 40,
chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.153 is amended by adding paragraph (b) and reserving
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.153  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (b) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. Effective
November 7, 2022 the EPA has determined that the Yuma County Marginal
nonattainment area in Arizona attained the 2015 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date
of August 3, 2021, based upon complete quality-assured and certified
data for the calendar years 2018-2020.
    (c) [Reserved]

Subpart F--California

0
3. Section 52.282 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.282  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (m) Determinations of attainment by the attainment date. Effective
November 7, 2022. The EPA has determined that the Amador County and San
Francisco Bay Marginal nonattainment areas in California attained the
2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment date of August 3, 2021, based upon complete
quality-assured and certified data for the calendar years 2018-2020.

Subpart L-- Georgia

0
4. Section 52.577 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.577  Determination of attainment.

* * * * *
    (e) Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data for the 3-year
period 2018-2020, EPA determined that the Atlanta, Georgia, 2015 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area attained the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date of August 3, 2021. Therefore, EPA has met
the requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine, based
on the Area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the Area
attained the standard. EPA also determined that the Atlanta, Georgia,
2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is not subject to the consequences
of failing to attain pursuant to section 181(b)(2).

Subpart TT-- Utah

0
5. Section 52.2332 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2332  Control strategy: Ozone.

    (a) Determinations. EPA is determining that, as of July 18, 1995,
the Salt Lake and Davis Counties ozone nonattainment area has attained
the ozone standard based on air quality monitoring data from 1992,
1993, and 1994, and that the reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and related
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act do not apply to
the area for so long as the area does not monitor any violations of the
ozone standard. If a violation of the ozone NAAQS is monitored in the
Salt Lake and Davis Counties ozone nonattainment area, these
determinations shall no longer apply.
    (b) Determination. Effective November 7, 2022, EPA is determining
that the Southern Wasatch Front, Utah Marginal nonattainment area
attained the 2015 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of August 3, 2021, based upon
complete quality-assured and certified data for the calendar years
2018-2020.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
7. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
8. Section 81.303 is amended in the table for ``Arizona-2015 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for
``Phoenix-Mesa, AZ'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

                                        Arizona--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ.............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Gila County (part):
        T2N, R12E (except
         that portion in
         Maricopa County);
         T3N, R12E (except
         that portion in
         Maricopa County);
         T4N, R12E (Sections
         25 through 29
         (except those
         portions in Maricopa
         County) and 33
         through 36 (except
         those portions in
         Maricopa County)).
    Mariposa County (part):

        T1N, R1E (except that
         portion in Indian
         Country); T1N, R2E;
         T1N, R3E; T1N, R4E
         (except that portion
         in Indian Country);
         T1N, R5E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T1N, R6E; T1N, R7E;
         T1N, R1W; T1N, R2W;
         T1N, R3W; T1N, R4W;
         T1N, R5W; T1N, R6W;
         T1N, R7W; T1N, R8W;
         T2N, R1E; T2N, R2E;
         T2N, R3E; T2N, R4E;
         T2N, R6E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T2N, R7E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T2N, R8E; T2N, R9E;
         T2N, R10E; T2N,
         R11E; T2N, R12E
         (except that portion
         in Gila County);
         T2N, R13E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T2N, R1W;
         T2N, R2W; T2N, R3W;
         T2N, R4W; T2N, R5W;
         T2N, R6W; T2N, R7W;
         T2N, R8W; T3N, R1E;
         T3N, R2E; T3N, R3E;
         T3N, R4E; T3N, R5E
         (except that portion
         in Indian Country);
         T3N, R6E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T3N, R7E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T3N, R8E; T3N, R9E;
         T3N, R10E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T3N, R11E
         (except that portion
         in Gila County);
         T3N, R12E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T3N, R1W;
         T3N, R2W T3N, R3W;
         T3N, R4W; T3N, R5W;
         T3N, R6W; T4N, R1E;
         T4N, R2E; T4N, R3E;
         T4N, R4E; T4N, R5E;
         T4N, R6E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T4N, R7E (except
         that portion in
         Indian Country);
         T4N, R8E T4N, R9E;
         T4N, R10E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T4N, R11E
         (except that portion
         in Gila County);
         T4N, R12E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T4N, R1W;
         T4N, R2W; T4N, R3W;
         T4N, R4W; T4N, R5W;
         T4N, R6W; T5N, R1E;
         T5N, R2E; T5N, R3E;
         T5N, R4E; T5N, R5E;
         T5N, R6E; T5N, R7E;
         T5N, R8E; T5N, R9E
         (except that portion
         in Gila County);
         T5N, R10E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T5N, R1W;
         T5N, R2W; T5N, R3W;
         T5N, R4W; T5N, R5W;
         T6N, R1E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T6N, R2E; T6N, R3E;
         T6N, R4E; T6N, R5E;
         T6N, R6E; T6N, R7E;
         T6N, R8E; T6N, R9E
         (except that portion
         in Gila County);
         T6N, R10E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T6N, R1W
         (except that portion
         in Yavapai County);
         T6N, R2W; T6N, R3W;
         T6N, R4W; T6N, R5W;
         T7N, R1E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T7N, R2E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T7N, R3E; T7N, R4E;
         T7N, R5E; T7N, R6E;
         T7N, R7E; T7N, R8E;
         T7N, R9E (except
         that portion in Gila
         County); T7N, R1W
         (except that portion
         in Yavapai County);
         T7N, R2W (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R2E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R3E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R4E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R5E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R6E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R7E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai County);
         T8N, R8E (except
         that portion in
         Yavapai and Gila
         Counties); T8N, R9E
         (except that portion
         in Yavapai and Gila
         Counties); T1S, R1E
         (except that portion
         in Indian Country);
         T1S, R2E (except
         that portion in
         Pinal County and in
         Indian Country);

 T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S,
 R5E; T1S, R6E; T1S, R7E;
 T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S,
 R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W;
 T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except
 that portion in Indian
 Country); T2S, R5E; T2S,
 R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W;
 T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S,
 R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E;
 T3S, R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S,
 R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W;
 T4S, R1E; T4S, R1W; T4S,
 R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W;
 T4S, R5W; T5S, R4W (Sections
 1 through 22 and 27 through
 34).
    Pinal County (part):
        T1N, R8E; T1N, R9E;
         T1N, R10E; T1S, R8E;
         T1S, R9E; T1S, R10E;
         T2S, R8E (Sections 1
         through 10, 15
         through 22, and 27
         through 34); T2S,
         R9E (Sections 1
         through 6); T2S,
         R10E (Sections 1
         through 6); T3S, R7E
         (Sections 1 through
         6, 11 through 14, 23
         through 26, and 35
         through 36); T3S,
         R8E (Sections 3
         through 10, 15
         through 22, and 27
         through 34).
    Fort McDowell Yavapai
     Nation.
    Gila River Indian
     Community of the Gila
     River Indian
     Reservation, Arizona.
        Includes only non-