[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 38393]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16723]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83749; File No. SR-NYSE 2018-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period on Commission Action of
Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent the Retail Liquidity Program
Pilot, NYSE Rule 107C, Which Is Set To Expire on December 31, 2018

July 31, 2018.
    On June 4, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
permanent the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Pilot. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
21, 2018.\3\ The Commission has received no comment letters on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83454 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 5, 2018. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
September 19, 2018, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2018-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16723 Filed 8-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7734-7746]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02653]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0310; FRL-8007-03-OAR]

40 CFR Part 81

Response to Clean Air Act Section 176A Petition From Maine; Final
Action on Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action on petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 176A petition submitted by the state of Maine on
February 24, 2020. The petition requested that the EPA remove a portion
of Maine from the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) based on that area's
continued attainment with ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and technical analyses demonstrating that further control of
emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly contribute
to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR.

DATES: This final action is effective March 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0310. All documents in the docket are
listed and publicly available at http://www.regulations.gov. Publicly
available docket materials are also available in hard copy at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA William
Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC. Out of an abundance of caution, the EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March 31,
2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. The EPA Docket
Center and Reading Room has since started the reopening process.
Visitors will be considered on an exception basis and allowed entrance
by appointment only. Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status,
please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. In addition to being
available in the docket, an electronic copy of this document will be
posted at https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-section-176a-petition-maine.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this final notice
should be directed to Holly DeJong, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Policy Division, Mail code C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the U.S. EPA. The information in
this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Executive Summary
II. Background and Legal Authority
    A. Ozone Formation and Impacts
    B. Sections 176A and 184 of the CAA and the OTR Process
    C. Legal Standard for This Action
    D. Previous Actions
    E. The CAA Section 176A Petition From Maine
III. The EPA's Final Response to the CAA Section 176A Petition From
Maine
    A. The EPA's Assessment of Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition
    B. Public Comments
IV. Final Action To Grant Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition
V. Judicial Review and Determinations Under Sections 307(b)(1) and
307(d) of the CAA
VI. Statutory Authority

I. Executive Summary

    The EPA is finalizing approval of a Clean Air Act (CAA) section
176A petition submitted by the state of Maine on February 24, 2020. In
the petition, Maine requested that the EPA remove the state of Maine
from the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) except for 111 towns and cities
comprising the Androscoggin Valley,\1\ Down East \2\ and Metropolitan
Portland \3\ Air Quality Control Regions, commonly referred to as the
``Portland and Midcoast Ozone Areas.'' Maine contended that emissions
from northern and eastern Maine do not significantly contribute to
ozone nonattainment in other states nor do they interfere with
maintenance of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
in those Maine municipalities that would remain in the OTR. Therefore,
the state asserted that removing these areas from the OTR would not
degrade the air quality in Maine or in any other state. The petition
included monitoring data and technical analyses to support a
demonstration that the areas requested to be removed from the OTR are
in attainment with the ozone NAAQS and that emissions from these areas
do not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in any area of
the OTR. For the reasons detailed in this notice, the EPA is finalizing
approval of the petition on the basis that the portion of the state
requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a violation
of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that further control
of emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the
OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 81.90 defines the Androscoggin Valley Interstate Air
Quality Control Region as Androscoggin County, Kennebec County, Knox
County, Lincoln County, Waldo County and parts of Franklin County,
Oxford County, Somerset County. Androscoggin Valley also includes
Cass County in the State of New Hampshire. Cass County is not
included in the scope of this petition and will remain in the OTR.
    \2\ 40 CFR 81.181 defines the Down East Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region as Hancock County, Washington County and parts of
Penobscot County and Piscataquis County.
    \3\ 40 CFR 81.78 defines the Metropolitan Portland Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region as Cumberland County, Sagadahoc County,
York County, and the towns of Brownfield, Denmark, Fryeburg, Hiram,
and Porter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176A(a) of the CAA provides the Administrator with the
authority to develop transport regions for particular pollutants where
the Administrator determines that interstate transport of air
pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to
violations of air quality standards in one or more other states. In the
1990 CAA Amendments, Congress created the OTR by statute under CAA
section 184(a) to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States (U.S.).
    The creation of an interstate transport region requires
establishing a transport commission with representatives from each
state who make recommendations to mitigate interstate pollution. Model
rules and programs designed through the OTC (Ozone Transport
Commission) may be adopted by the individual states through their own
rulemaking processes. Under CAA section 184(c), the OTC may petition
the EPA to approve additional control measures to be applied within all
or part of the transport region. Maine seeks to remove portions of the
state from the OTR, thereby releasing those areas from OTC
recommendations and applicable control requirements established under
CAA section 184, effective 30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Existing State Implementation Plan (SIP)-approved controls
that were adopted by Maine due to its inclusion in the OTR will
remain in place unless and until Maine submits, and the EPA
approves, a SIP revision which includes a CAA section 110(1)
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176A(a)(1) of the CAA provides the Administrator with
authority to ``add any state or portion of

a state to any [transport] region . . . whenever the Administrator has
reason to believe that the interstate transport of air pollutants from
such state significantly contributes to a violation of the standard in
the transport region.'' Conversely, CAA section 176A(a)(2) allows the
Administrator to ``remove any state or portion of a state from [a
transport] region whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that
the control of emissions in that state or portion of the state . . .
will not significantly contribute to the attainment of the standard in
any area in the region.''
    In making this final decision, the EPA reviewed the petition from
Maine, the public comments received, the relevant statutory authorities
and other relevant materials. Accordingly, the EPA grants the CAA
section 176A petition from Maine.

II. Background and Legal Authority

A. Ozone Formation and Impacts

    Ground-level ozone causes a variety of negative effects on human
health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic
exposure to ozone is associated with premature mortality and several
morbidity effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In ecosystems, ozone
exposure may cause visible foliar injury, decrease plant growth, and
affect ecological community composition. Ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air. Rather, it is a secondary air pollutant
created by chemical reactions between nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.
These precursor emissions can be transported downwind directly or,
after transformation in the atmosphere, as ozone. As a result, ozone
formation, atmospheric residence, and transport can occur on a regional
scale (i.e., hundreds of miles).
    The EPA has regulated ozone pollution and the precursor emissions
that contribute to ozone for the last five decades.\5\ Currently, there
are two NAAQS in effect for ozone.\6\ On March 12, 2008, the EPA
promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS, lowering both the primary
and secondary standards to 75 parts per billion (ppb).\7\ On October 1,
2015, the EPA lowered the primary and secondary standards to 70 ppb.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Primary and secondary NAAQS were first established for
photochemical oxidants in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971). In
1979, the EPA revised the NAAQS to change the indicator from
photochemical oxidants to O3 and to revise the primary
and secondary standards. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). In 2005, the
1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was revoked for all areas except the 8-Hour Ozone
nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. 70 FR 44470 (June
15, 2005). In 1997, the EPA once again revised the primary and
secondary standards for ozone NAAQS. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In
2015, the 1997 ozone NAAQS were revoked. 80 FR 12264 (March 6,
2015).
    \6\ The 1997 ozone NAAQS were revoked in 2015. 80 FR 12264
(March 6, 2015).
    \7\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \8\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with CAA section 107(d), the EPA designates areas as
``attainment'' (meeting the standard), ``nonattainment'' (not meeting
the standard) or ``unclassifiable'' (insufficient data to classify).
States with areas designated as nonattainment must develop and submit
SIPs to the EPA with the goal of attaining and maintaining the level of
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadline. In this way, the EPA
and states work collaboratively to establish and implement
nonattainment area planning requirements that are designed to bring
areas into attainment of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
deadline. A key step in ensuring that areas attain and maintain ozone
NAAQS is to assess and understand the potential for ozone source
formation in a given area, including the potential for upwind states'
emissions to impact ozone formation in downwind states.

B. Sections 176A and 184 of the CAA and the OTR Process

    Subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA provides the general plan
requirements for designated nonattainment areas. This subpart includes
provisions governing the development of transport regions to address
the interstate transport of pollutants that contribute to NAAQS
violations. In particular, section 176A(a) of the CAA provides that, on
the EPA's own motion or by a petition from the Governor of any state,
whenever the EPA has reason to believe that the interstate transport of
air pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to a
violation of the NAAQS in one or more other states, the EPA may
establish, by rule, a transport region for such pollutant that includes
such states. The provision further provides that the EPA may add any
state or portion of a state to any transport region whenever the
Administrator has reason to believe that the interstate transport of
air pollutants from such state significantly contributes to a violation
of the standard in the transport region.
    Section 176A(b) of the CAA provides that when the EPA establishes a
transport region, the Administrator shall establish an associated
transport commission, comprised of (at a minimum) the following: The
Governor or her or his designee of each covered state, the EPA
Administrator or a designee, the Regional EPA Administrator or a
designee, and an air pollution control official appointed by the
Governor of each state. The purpose of the transport commission is to
assess the degree of interstate transport throughout the transport
region and assess and recommend control strategies to the EPA to
mitigate such interstate transport.
    Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA provides plan
requirements specific to the ozone NAAQS. Consistent with CAA section
176A, found in subpart 1, subpart 2 includes specific provisions
focused on the interstate transport of ozone. CAA section 184(a)
establishes a single transport region for ozone--the OTR--comprising
the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area for the
District of Columbia, which includes certain portions of northern
Virginia. The Virginia counties and cities included in the OTR are
Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church
City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.
    Section 184(b) of the CAA establishes specific control requirements
that each state in the OTR is required to implement within the state,
including certain controls on sources of NOX and VOCs. These
control requirements are required to be implemented statewide in any
state included within the OTR, regardless of ozone attainment
status.\9\ Under CAA section 184(b)(1)(A), OTR states must include
enhanced vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs in
their SIPs.\10\ Under CAA section 184(b)(2), major stationary sources
of VOCs in the OTR are subject to the same requirements that apply to
major sources in designated ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate.\11\ Thus, the state must adopt

rules to apply nonattainment new source review (NNSR) and reasonably
available control technology (RACT) (pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2))
provisions for major VOC sources. Under CAA section 184(b)(2) states
must also implement Stage II gasoline refueling vapor recovery
programs, incremental to vehicle Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
achievements, or measures that achieve comparable emissions reductions
for both attainment and nonattainment areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that one exception to the statewide applicability of
these control requirements applies to Virginia, as only a portion of
that state is included within the OTR.
    \10\ In the OTR, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
programs are required in metropolitan statistical areas with a 1990
Census population of 100,000 or more.
    \11\ Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA provides that, for purposes of
implementing these requirements, a major stationary source shall be
defined as any source that emits or has the potential to emit at
least 50 tons per year of VOCs.
    \12\ See 72 FR 28772, May 16, 2012, Air Quality: Widespread Use
for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(f) of the CAA requires states to apply the same
requirements to major stationary sources of NOX as are
applied to major stationary sources of VOCs under subpart 2. Thus, the
same NNSR and RACT requirements that apply to major stationary sources
of VOC in the OTR also apply to major stationary sources of
NOX.\13\ CAA section 182(f) provides for a NOX
waiver, or an exemption to the NOX requirements, where the
Administrator determines that such NOX reductions would not
contribute to the attainment of the NAAQS in an area. Areas granted a
NOX waiver under CAA section 182(f) may be exempt from
certain requirements of the EPA's motor vehicle I/M program regulations
and from certain federal requirements of general and transportation
conformity.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 57 FR 55622 (Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General
Preamble, published November 25, 1992).
    \14\ As stated in the EPA's I/M (November 5, 1992; 57 FR 52950)
and conformity rules (60 FR 57179 for transportation rules and 58 FR
63214 for general rules), certain NOX requirements in
those rules do not apply where the EPA grants an areawide exemption
under CAA section 182(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Legal Standard for This Action

    The EPA proposed to interpret the key terms in CAA section
176A(a)(2) (i.e., ``control of emissions . . . will not significantly
contribute to the attainment of the standard'' and ``in any area in the
region'') within the context of and consistently with other parts of
the CAA that govern the interstate transport of ozone pollution, taking
into account relevant facts and circumstances and the EPA's past
approaches to addressing interstate ozone transport. Specifically,
because of CAA section 176A(a)(2)'s use of the phrase ``significantly
contribute to [ ] attainment,'' the EPA proposed to look to its prior
interpretations of the interstate pollution transport provision, often
referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provision, at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and the 4-step interstate transport
framework the Agency has applied to analyze significant contributions
under that provision in various regional interstate transport rules, to
guide the Agency's analysis in determining whether Maine had met the
necessary condition for removal from the OTR.\15\ 86 FR 23312-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We note that we received a comment alleging that CAA
section 176A(a)(2) applies to Maine's petition by virtue of the
reference to that section in CAA section 184(a). We address that
comment below in the Responses to Comment section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, we proposed to interpret the inquiry under CAA section
176A(a)(2) as permitting the EPA to remove a state or a portion of a
state from a transport region whenever the Administrator has reason to
believe that the state's continued inclusion in the transport region
will not be required for attainment in the transport region, i.e., that
the petitioning state is not significantly contributing to air quality
problems in the region and will not so contribute if the state is
removed from the OTR. We received no adverse comments on this aspect of
our interpretation, and we are therefore retaining this interpretation
for purposes of the final approval.
    We also proposed an interpretation of the phrase ``control of
emissions in that state or portion of that state pursuant to this
section.'' The EPA proposed that ``controls'' refers to new controls
that would be required under CAA section 184(b) if the state or portion
of the state were to remain in the OTR, as opposed to controls that the
state has already adopted as required by the CAA due to its inclusion
in the OTR. We stated that interpreting ``controls'' in this manner
gives effect to the forward-looking nature of the provision, which asks
the Administrator to analyze whether removal of the state or portion of
the state from the OTR ``will'' have the effect of contributing to air
quality problems in any area in the OTR. We are finalizing this
interpretation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ One commenter asserted that the technical bases relied upon
by the Agency in its proposal were ``inadequate to the task'' of
analyzing Maine's petition, because those bases assumed the
continued application of existing OTR controls. We address that
comment in section III.B of this notice and in the Response to
Comments (RTC) document for this action. Another commenter asserted
that the EPA's interpretation of controls required us to articulate
how CAA section 110(l) demonstrations would be analyzed in the
future. We address that comment in Section III.B of this notice and
the RTC document for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to interpret CAA section 176A(a)(2)'s use of the phrase
``any area in the region,'' which we used to establish the geographic
scope of our significant contribution analysis, to mean all existing
areas in the OTR, including areas within the petitioning state. We also
took comment on an alternative interpretation wherein our analysis
would be limited to interstate impacts, as opposed to impacts within a
state's own borders. We received two comments supporting the broader
interpretation, i.e., that the phrase should be read to mean all areas
in the existing OTR. The EPA will continue to assume for purposes of
our final analysis that the phrase ``any area in the region'' includes
any areas within the State of Maine in addition to areas of the OTR
beyond Maine's borders. Because our analysis is that Maine's emissions
will not significantly contribute to any nonattainment receptors in the
OTR, including within its own borders, at this time we need not decide
whether it would be appropriate to adopt a narrower interpretation of
the phrase as limited to areas beyond the home state's borders.
    In summary, we proposed to interpret CAA section 176A(a)(2) in a
manner consistent with the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework,
and we retain that proposed interpretation for purposes of this final
action. Applying that framework to the question presented by CAA
section 176A(a)(2), we proposed to interpret the inquiry as requiring
the Administrator to identify whether there are ambient air monitoring
sites in the OTR that either are projected to be in nonattainment based
on modeling data, or potentially struggle with maintenance or are
currently violating the NAAQS based on monitored data, and whether the
area petitioned to be removed from the transport region contributes
below one percent of the NAAQS to those monitors. We retain that
interpretation for purposes of this final rule.

D. Previous Actions

    Consistent with the 1990 CAA Amendments, nine Maine counties were
designated as nonattainment of the now-revoked 1979 1-hour NAAQS (0.12
parts per million (ppm)). York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin,
Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln Counties were classified as Moderate
nonattainment areas. Waldo and Hancock Counties were classified as
Marginal nonattainment areas.
    Maine had two nonattainment areas under the now-revoked 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The Portland Ozone Nonattainment area consisted of 56
cities and towns in York, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties, along
with the town of Durham in Androscoggin County, and was classified as
Marginal

for the 1997 ozone standard. The Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo
Counties Ozone Nonattainment Area (also known as the Midcoast area)
consisted of 55 coastal towns and islands in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln,
and Waldo counties and was designated as nonattainment under Subpart 1
for the 8-hour ozone standard. Maine was designated ``Attainment/
Unclassifiable'' statewide for both the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone
standards of 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, respectively.
    As previously discussed, Section 184(b) of the CAA established
certain control requirements that each state in the OTR is required to
implement within the state. Section 182(f) of the CAA Amendments allows
for the suspension of the OTR stationary source NOX
requirements based on a demonstration that additional NOX
reductions would not produce net ozone air quality benefits in the OTR.
Maine has petitioned for and has been granted the following CAA section
182(f) NOX waivers.
    On December 26, 1995 (60 FR 66748), the EPA approved an exemption
request for the Northern Maine area from CAA section 182(f)
NOX requirements. This action exempted the Oxford, Franklin,
Somerset, Piscataquis, Penobscot, Washington, Aroostook, Hancock and
Waldo counties from the requirements to implement NOX
control measures for existing stationary sources, NNSR for new sources
and modifications that are major for NOX, NOX
RACT requirements, the NOX-related general conformity
provisions, and the NOX-related transportation conformity
provisions now contained in 40 CFR 93.119.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Transportation and general conformity requirements only
apply in nonattainment areas and areas redesignated to attainment
with an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan. See CAA section
176(c)(5). Transportation and general conformity do not apply in
attainment areas in the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5791), the EPA approved a request for an
exemption for a similar area in northern Maine (specifically Aroostook,
Franklin, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, and
portions of Hancock and Waldo Counties) under the 1997 ozone standard.
    On July 29, 2014 (78 FR 43945), the EPA approved the state of
Maine's request for an exemption from the NOX requirements
contained in section 182(f) of the CAA for the entire state of Maine
for the 2008 ozone standard. The CAA does not provide a similar VOC
waiver process, and major stationary sources of VOC remain subject to
NNSR and RACT requirements throughout the entire state of Maine.
    In addition to the NOX waivers under CAA section 182(f),
Maine requested and was granted an OTR restructuring with respect to
enhanced I/M requirements.\18\ (66 FR 1873; January 10, 2001) While the
Maine I/M rule did not meet all requirements of the EPA's final rule
for enhanced I/M, the EPA determined that the implementation of an
enhanced I/M program in Maine in place of the approved Maine I/M rule
would not significantly contribute to attainment in any other state in
the OTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EPA's I/M rule was established on November 5, 1992 (57
FR 52950). The EPA made significant revisions to the I/M rule on
September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036).
Maine is subject to the requirements of the CAA for an I/M program
in the Portland, Maine area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The CAA Section 176A Petition From Maine

    On February 24, 2020, the state of Maine petitioned the EPA
pursuant to CAA section 176A(a)(2) for the removal of the state of
Maine from the OTR with the exception of the 111 towns and cities
listed in Table 1 comprising the Portland and Midcoast Ozone Areas.

 Table 1--Maine Towns and Cities To Remain in the Ozone Transport Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin County (includes only the following town): Durham.
Cumberland County (includes only the following towns and cities):
 Brunswick, Cape Elizabeth, Casco, Cumberland, Falmouth, Freeport, Frye
 Island, Gorham, Gray, Harpswell, Long Island, New Gloucester, North
 Yarmouth, Portland, Pownal, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland,
 Standish, Westbrook, Windham, and Yarmouth.
Hancock County (includes only the following towns and cities): Bar
 Harbor, Blue Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Cranberry Isles, Deer Isle,
 Frenchboro, Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Mount Desert, Sedwick,
 Sorrento, Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Surry, Swans Island,
 Tremont, Trenton, and Winter Harbor.
Knox County (includes only the following towns and cities): Camden,
 Criehaven, Cushing, Friendship, Isle au Haut, Matinicus Isle, Muscle
 Ridge Shoals, North Haven, Owls Head, Rockland, Rockport, St. George,
 South Thomaston, Thomaston, Vinalhaven, and Warren.
Lincoln County (includes only the following towns and cities): Alna,
 Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Breman, Bristol, Damariscotta, Dresden,
 Edgecomb, Monhegan, Newcastle, Nobleboro, South Bristol, Southport,
 Waldoboro, Westport, and Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc County (includes all towns and cities).
Waldo County (includes only the following town): Islesboro.
York County (includes only the following towns and cities): Alfred,
 Arundel, Berwick, Biddeford, Buxton, Dayton, Eliot, Hollis, Kennebunk,
 Kennebunkport, Kittery, Limington, Lyman, North Berwick, Ogunquit, Old
 Orchard Beach, Saco, Sanford, South Berwick, Wells, and York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Maine Department of Environmental Protection provided an
analysis purporting to demonstrate that Maine's emissions have an
insignificant effect on nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
other states and in those areas in Maine that will remain in the OTR.
Maine's analysis consisted of modeling ``back trajectories'' for ozone
exceedance days in the 2016-2018 period recorded at monitoring
locations in southern New England and in Maine, the EPA's source-
apportionment modeling results and emissions-inventory data for Maine
and the OTR.\19\ A more detailed description of the technical analysis
included in Maine's petition can be found in Section V.A of the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Back trajectory analyses use interpolated measured or
modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central
path over geographical areas that an air parcel travels before
reaching a specific location at a given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The EPA's Final Response to the CAA Section 176A Petition From
Maine

A. The EPA's Assessment of Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition

    On May 3, 2021, the EPA proposed to grant the CAA section 176A
petition from Maine (86 FR 23309). The EPA considered monitoring data,
technical demonstrations, and impacts to air quality control regimes in
the areas to be removed and proposed to grant Maine's petition on the
basis that the portion of the state requested to be removed from the
OTR does not contribute to a violation of any ozone standard in any
area of the OTR, and that further control of emissions from that
portion of Maine under CAA section 184 will not significantly
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the
OTR. The EPA's basis for this

final action to grant Maine's petition has not fundamentally changed
from the proposal. The EPA continues to believe that the portion of the
state requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a
violation of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that
further control of emissions from that portion of Maine will not
significantly contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any
area of the OTR.
    In support of the EPA's decision to grant the petition, the EPA has
determined that all areas of the state proposed for removal from the
OTR have been designated in attainment of the ozone NAAQS since 2004,
and the entire state of Maine has been designated as in attainment with
the ozone NAAQS since 2007. Additionally, technical demonstrations from
Maine's Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory
(HYSPLIT) back trajectory analysis, the EPA's ozone source
apportionment modeling, and emissions trends all indicate that
emissions from the areas requested to be removed from the OTR will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance problems in
any area in the OTR, either within or outside the state of Maine, in
the foreseeable future. Furthermore, removing those areas from the OTR
will not result in unchecked relaxation of existing NOX and
VOC controls included in Maine's SIP or revoke permitted emissions
limits at existing facilities. For these reasons, the EPA believes that
a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions resulting from this
action is highly unlikely in any area of Maine or the OTR. A full
description of the EPA's technical assessment can be found in Section
V.B. of the proposal. The EPA's full assessment of the provisions that
will be impacted as a result of granting the petition can be found in
Section IV.B of the proposal.

B. Public Comments

    The EPA received 11 comments during the public comment period on
the EPA's proposal to grant Maine's petition. This section addresses
significant comments received regarding the need for future ozone
monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR, the potential for
final approval of the petition to increase ozone levels in the OTR, and
potential adverse impacts that could result if removing part of Maine
from the OTR were to increase ozone levels. The remaining comments are
addressed in a separate Response to Comments (RTC) document found in
the docket for this action.
I. Comments Regarding Future Monitoring
    Comment: Several commenters note that there are no future plans to
monitor for ozone in the areas to be removed from the OTR, and that if
the decision to approve the petition is finalized, the EPA should
require future monitoring in those areas. One commenter asserts that
the Agency should require quarterly or bi-annual monitoring,
particularly in areas where there could be more industry development.
Another commenter asserts that the EPA should establish an assessment
plan to be carried out every few years to ensure that the ozone stays
within the acceptable range. One commenter notes that currently there
is limited monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR and that
weakening requirements for ozone precursor pollution controls in these
areas without ensuring that there is a monitoring system in place to
track changes in ozone formation resulting from that decision leaves
the EPA no way to determine what the impacts of this decision are.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with commenters that there are no plans
for future ozone monitoring in the areas to be removed from the OTR and
disagrees that the monitoring system currently in place is insufficient
to inform the Agency's decision making on this petition. Maine's ozone
monitoring obligations as set out in 40 CFR part 58 are not impacted by
whether portions of the state are removed from the OTR. Minimum
monitoring requirements for ozone are based on Metropolitan Statistical
Areas/Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA/CMSA)
population, and how close an area's design value concentrations of a
pollutant are to the NAAQS. In addition, every state is required to
have at least one NCore site that must measure ozone year-round.
Currently, there are 14 ozone monitoring sites operating in Maine with
eight monitoring sites located in the portion of the state proposed to
be removed from the OTR. Of these eight monitoring sites, one is
operated by the EPA's CASTNET program, and two are operated by
independent tribal nations. For these three monitoring sites, it is not
within the state's purview to consider discontinuation. Although
Maine's current ozone monitoring network already exceeds the minimum
regulatory requirements set out in 40 CFR part 58, according to 40 CFR
part 58.10, any modifications to Maine's current ozone monitoring
network must be proposed by Maine and approved by the EPA Regional
Administrator. In addition, every 5 years, Maine is required to submit
an assessment to the EPA to determine if its current monitoring network
``meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part,
whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer
needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are
appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring
network.'' If, as commenters postulate, emissions of ozone precursors
were to increase substantially as a result of the approval of this
petition in an area that is not currently monitored, the location and
magnitude of new emissions sources could be evaluated at that 5-year
interval to determine whether their existence warrants additional ozone
monitors or any other modifications to the ozone monitoring network.
    The EPA also notes that all ozone monitoring data in locations for
which the petition requests be removed from the OTR have 2020 design
values substantially below the current ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. The
highest design value among these ozone monitors is 0.057 ppm. There is
no indication, and commenters have not cited evidence, that ozone
levels in areas of Maine away from the monitoring locations differ
substantially from those at the locations of the monitors.

                                 Table 2--Table of 2018, 2019, and 2020 DVs for Monitoring Sites in ME With Non-Zero DVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2016-2018    2017-2019    2018-2020   Removed from
        AQS site ID                County name              CBSA name            Local site name          DV           DV           DV          OTR?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
230010014..................  Androscoggin..........  Lewiston-Auburn.......  Durham Fire Station...           59           57           53            N
230031100..................  Aroostook.............  ......................  Micmac Health Dept....           51           51           51            Y
230039991..................  Aroostook.............  ......................  Ashland...............           52           53           53            Y

230052003..................  Cumberland............  Portland..............  Cape Elizabeth Two               65           64           62            N
                                                                              Lights.
230090102..................  Hancock...............  ......................  Top of Cadillac                  70           69           65            N
                                                                              Mountain.
230090103..................  Hancock...............  ......................  McFarland Hill........           63           64           60            N
230112001..................  Kennebec..............  Augusta-Waterville....  Gardiner HS...........           62           60           55            Y
230130004..................  Knox..................  ......................  Marshall Point                   63           61           60            N
                                                                              Lighthouse.
230173002..................  Oxford................  ......................  Bethel Smith Farm Road            0           57           54            Y
230194008..................  Penobscot.............  Bangor................  Summit of Rider Bluff.           57           56           55            Y
230290019..................  Washington............  ......................  Jonesport Public                 61           60           57            Y
                                                                              Landing.
230310038..................  York..................  Portland..............  West Buxton Fire Dept.           59           57           53            N
230310040..................  York..................  Portland..............  Shapleigh Ball Park...           61           60           56            Y
230312002..................  York..................  Portland..............  Kennebunkport.........           66           64           64            N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comments Regarding the Potential for This Action To Increase Ozone
Levels in the OTR, and Potential Adverse Impacts That Could Result if
Removing Part of Maine From the OTR Were To Increase Ozone Levels in
the OTR
    Comment: One commenter asserts that Maine's petition does not
establish a ``reason to believe'' that all areas currently within the
OTR in Maine will not see significant additional ozone precursor
emissions due to the EPA's approval of Maine's request. The commenter
contends that the analyses relied on by Maine and the EPA are all based
on the continued application of existing OTR controls, including the
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements and offsets. The
commenter states that the petition offers no information about expected
additional new or expanded existing sources in the area of Maine to be
removed from the OTR, nor does the petition assess what emissions
increases or ozone levels would be expected from allowing new or
expanded existing stationary sources without requiring Lowest
Achievable Emissions Rate for NOX and VOC emissions, and
providing offsets of at least 1.15:1. The commenter claims that the
EPA's failure to consider the consequences of approving Maine's
petition (i.e., the likely increase in new and modified industrial
sources in inland Maine and the accompanying increase in ozone
precursor emissions and in ozone concentrations) constitutes an abuse
of the EPA's discretion.
    The commenter notes that, should Maine's ozone precursor emissions
increase, the state may experience nonattainment of the current 70 ppb
standard or of a more stringent standard. The commenter further asserts
that if ozone levels increase enough to trigger nonattainment status
(under the current standard or future standards), that would require
all nonattainment provisions to be reinstated, including OTR
requirements that have been waived on the basis that much of the state
is in attainment and create regulatory uncertainty for industry.
Furthermore, the commenter asserts that removing parts of the state
from the OTR will cause Maine to lose the mantle of ``clean hands.''
The commenter states that Maine's longstanding status in the OTR has
shown that the state ``did its part to ensure that areas within the
State and downwind are also clean'' but that leaving the OTR will
``eliminate that good neighbor behavior'' and ultimately be unfair to
other states in the OTR and their neighbors in Canada. The commenter
also points to maximum 8-hour average concentrations recorded during
the June 6-7, 2021, high ozone event in Maine and asserts that climate
change will exacerbate the problem of high ozone throughout the Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast states, and further contribute to high ozone
levels in Maine.
    Multiple commenters also note that the proposal, if finalized,
could be harmful to health and the environment if emissions were to
increase as a result of approving the petition. One commenter notes
that some of the counties and cities that would be removed include
farmland and asserts that prolonged exposure to ozone would decrease
the growth and production of crops and lead to economic instability for
farmers in those areas. Another commenter states that the EPA failed to
address potential adverse effects of its action on plant and animal
life in parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas in
Maine, and asserts that the current secondary ozone standard is not
sufficiently protective of plants (including crops), trees, and
animals. The commenter also cites the adverse effects of ozone exposure
on the black cherry tree in Maine and on wilderness area ecosystems,
which the commenter cites as important for the carbon storage and other
climate benefits these areas provide. The commenter further asserts
that the EPA has failed to consider possible implications of its action
on air quality and regional haze at the coastal Moosehorn Baring and
Moosehorn Edmunds Wilderness Areas in Washington County, or in the
downwind Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, all U.S. Class I
areas.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that there is insufficient
information to finalize the approval of Maine's request. The analytical
information described in the proposal first identified air quality
monitors located in the OTR that either measured elevated ozone
concentrations or were projected to have design values that violated
the NAAQS or struggled to maintain the NAAQS. The analyses then used a
HYSPLIT trajectory model and photochemical source apportionment
modeling to identify whether Maine contributed to those problem
monitors. We acknowledge that this information did not attempt to
speculate what sources might locate in Maine or make modifications
based on the regulatory changes that would result from this final
action (in particular, as raised by commenter, the change from NNSR

requirements to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements). However, other information in the record, including
current ozone concentrations in the state and projected emissions
trends, informs the EPA's determination that the portion of the state
requested to be removed from the OTR does not contribute to a violation
of any ozone standard in any area of the OTR, and that further control
of emissions from that portion of Maine will not significantly
contribute to the attainment of any ozone standard in any area of the
OTR. All areas of the state proposed for removal from the OTR have been
designated in attainment of the ozone NAAQS since 2004, and the entire
state of Maine has been designated as in attainment with the ozone
NAAQS since 2007. Our evaluation of emissions trends and applicability
of other existing regulatory control programs that would still apply to
the areas removed from the OTR, discussed in more detail below,
indicate that a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions
resulting from this action is highly unlikely.
    To begin, the projected emissions in Maine indicate steep declines
in emissions of ozone precursors associated with on-the-books emissions
controls, including mobile source controls that will continue to
provide emissions reductions throughout the entire State regardless of
whether portions of the state remain in the OTR or are removed from the
OTR. Emissions trends of ozone season NOX and VOC in the
counties to be fully removed from the OTR are provided in Table
3.20 21 The data indicate that NOX and VOC
emissions will continue to trend downward in these counties, primarily
due to reductions in onroad mobile sources. For the counties to be
fully removed from the OTR, the emissions of ozone season
NOX from onroad mobile sources are projected to decline by
70 percent from 2016 to 2032, as compared to 22 percent for other
anthropogenic source sectors. Emissions of VOCs from onroad mobile
sources in the counties to be fully removed from the OTR are projected
to decline by 53 percent from 2016 to 2032, as compared to 34 percent
for other anthropogenic source sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Trends in NOX and VOC for individual source
sectors for each county in Maine can be found in the docket for this
rule.
    \21\ The development of emissions data for 2016, 2023, and 2032
is described in the 2016v2 North American Emissions Modeling
Platform, https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.

            Table 3--Ozone Season NOX and VOC Emissions in Counties To Be Fully Removed From the OTR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2016            2023            2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
    Onroad Mobile...............................................           3,318           1,581             990
    Other Sectors...............................................           6,712           5,525           5,212
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................          10,030           7,106           6,202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC:
    Onroad Mobile...............................................           1,058             670             499
    Other Sectors...............................................           7,439           5,527           4,883
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           8,498           6,197           5,381
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the books mobile source controls include: Control of Air
Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014); Control of Air Pollution
from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (See 66 FR 5002,
January 18, 2001); and Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel (See 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004). If
additional national mobile source rules are adopted and implemented in
the future, those will also provide emissions reductions throughout the
entire state regardless of OTR status.
    As noted at proposal, Maine's current modeled contributions to
nonattainment or maintenance issues anywhere in the OTR are also
relevant. The state's highest modeled contribution to any receptor in
the OTR that is expected to struggle with attainment or maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is only 0.01 ppb, i.e., 0.01 percent of the 70 ppb
standard. This suggests that the ozone contribution from anthropogenic
ozone precursor emissions in Maine would have to increase by a factor
of 70 for Maine to potentially contribute above the one percent
threshold to an existing or projected nonattainment or maintenance
problem in the OTR. This observation is made merely to provide an
indication of the general magnitude of emissions increases from Maine
that would be needed for existing trends in improving air quality to be
halted and reversed to the extent that such an increase may create new
air quality problems closer to, or within, Maine. We cannot predict
what emissions increases or ozone levels would be expected based on
regulatory changes associated with the EPA's approval of Maine's
request. But the existing baseline of our analysis of Maine's emissions
to other states informs our judgment that it is not reasonable to
expect emissions increases on this scale or anything like it.
    As also discussed in the proposal, we recognize that by approving
Maine's request there would be consequent changes to the New Source
Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program in the state. However,
while commenter is correct that lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
and the 1.15:1 emissions offset requirements would no longer apply to
new major stationary sources and major modifications in the areas of
the state being removed from the OTR, it is not the case these new and
modified sources could construct without any regulatory safeguards in
place.
    Specifically, the areas being removed from the OTR will be subject
to Maine's PSD and minor NSR permitting requirements for ozone
precursors, NOX and VOC. Both the PSD and minor NSR
permitting programs require that permitting authorities assess the
impact of the proposed emissions increases from new and modified
sources on the applicable NAAQS, as required by CAA sections
165(a)(3)(B) and 110(a)(2)(C), prior to construction. The PSD program,
which will apply to major stationary sources and major modifications in
the areas removed from the OTR, requires a

control technology review, called Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), and an air quality analysis to demonstrate that the proposed
new or modified emissions source will not cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment. Like LAER, BACT is a case-by-
case decision for the facility and examines state-of-the-art pollution
controls, although for BACT, the permitting authority considers the
energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, that are
not considered in LAER determinations. However, depending on the type
of facility and the cost effectiveness of controls, or other factors,
there may not always be significant differences between the level of
control that would be required under BACT versus LAER.
    Moreover, for much of the area being removed from the OTR in Maine,
the change from LAER to BACT for NOX for new and modified
sources is not new. As discussed in the proposal, Maine has applied for
and obtained NOX waivers under CAA section 182(f) for nearly
every ozone standard (all except the most recent 2015 ozone NAAQS). See
86 FR 23315. Consequently, for the 1979 1-hour, 1997 8-hour, and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS, many of the counties at issue in this action were
exempt from requirements to implement NNSR for new sources and
modifications that are major for NOX, NOX RACT
requirements, the NOX-related general conformity provisions,
and the NOX-related transportation conformity provisions.
Id. With these waivers in place, with respect to NSR, new sources and
modifications were therefore already subject to BACT for NOX
control, as they will be with finalization of this rule. For minor NSR
sources and modifications in areas being removed from the OTR, the
permitting requirements also will not change. These smaller new sources
and modifications will continue to be subject to Maine's minor NSR
permitting program, which does not have different requirements based on
a location's attainment status. An important feature of Maine's minor
NSR program is that its control technology standard is also BACT, so it
applies the same control review that Maine requires for larger sources
that are subject to PSD. (This is more stringent than federal
requirements, since neither the CAA nor the EPA's regulations specify a
minimum control requirement for minor NSR permits.) In addition,
Maine's minor NSR program requires air quality impact analyses for new
minor sources and minor modifications if their emissions exceed 50 tons
per year of NOX, and Maine can require air quality analyses
even for permits under 50 tons per year of NOX. Finally,
granting Maine's petition does not materially alter opportunities for
public involvement in the permitting process, as Maine's permitting
regulations contain procedures for the opportunity for public
participation for permitting actions for both major and minor
stationary sources under their minor NSR, PSD, and NNSR permitting
regulations.
    Consequently, it is not the case that the changes associated with
NSR requirements resulting from the removal of the areas from the OTR
are as drastic as commenter suggests. For VOCs, NNSR requirements will
be replaced by PSD for sources subject to major NSR, and the PSD
program has already long been the primary set of controls for new or
modified sources for NOX in much or all of Maine under the
state's CAA section 182(f) NOX waivers for every ozone
standard except the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, the minor NSR
program will continue to apply BACT and, in many cases, an air quality
assessment to smaller sources seeking permits to construct. Therefore,
even though we cannot precisely predict whether and to what extent
emissions will increase as a result of sources choosing to construct or
modify in the area to be removed from the OTR, the information we have
does not indicate that emissions will drastically increase, as they
would likely need to do in order to have significant impacts on
nonattainment in any area of the OTR. The projected ongoing downward
emissions trends are due primarily to national mobile source measures
that will continue to take effect, and new and modified stationary
sources will be subject to PSD BACT for NOX controls, which
has already been the primary regulatory regime for much of the area
being removed from the OTR for decades.
    Because the EPA does not agree that it is reasonable to assume
drastic emissions increases as a result of the final action, we also do
not think it is reasonable to assume that the health, environmental,
and relational \22\ consequences raised by commenters would come to
pass. As indicated in Table 2, all air quality monitors in the areas of
Maine that are being removed from the OTR are not only meeting the
current 70 ppb 2015 ozone NAAQS; these monitors are all 10 or more ppb
below the 70 ppb NAAQS. Further, health and environmental effects of
air pollution are addressed in the NAAQS setting and revision process
rather than in the implementation of the NAAQS. CAA section 109
requires the EPA to set the primary NAAQS at a level to protect the
public health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary
NAAQS at a level to protect public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects. In assessing impacts to public welfare,
the EPA looks at damage to trees and crops. Given the level of Maine's
contributions to any nonattainment or maintenance problems in the OTR
and given the current air quality at the monitors located in the
portions of the state to be removed from the OTR, it is not necessary
to separately analyze in the first instance each of the potential
public health and welfare consequences commenters raise concerns about.
These concerns are not enumerated as factors the Agency must consider
under CAA section 176A(a)(2), and all are premised on commenters'
speculation--with which we disagree--that ozone precursor emissions in
Maine will drastically increase as a result of the regulatory changes
associated with this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ With respect to commenter's concern that Maine's partial
removal from the OTR would interfere with its ``clean hands''
reputation or its relationship to other states and Canada, we note
that under the cooperative federalism structure of the Act, that is
a consideration for the state rather than the EPA. Under CAA section
176A(a), the Governor of a State may submit a petition to be removed
or partially removed from a transport region, and the EPA must act
on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the factual circumstances above that support the
EPA's determination that emissions are not likely to increase
drastically as a result of this action, we also note that the CAA's
other structural requirements and protections will continue to apply in
Maine. Any revisions to Maine's SIP would be subject to CAA section
110(l) anti-backsliding requirements.\23\ If the EPA revises the ozone
standard in the future, any area determined to be violating that
standard will be designated nonattainment with the attendant CAA
requirements associated with that designation. Similarly, the issuance
of any new NAAQS will also trigger Maine's obligation to submit a SIP
addressing its significant contributions to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in any other state under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). And finally, CAA section 184 and CAA section 176A
clearly provide that the EPA retains its authority to revise membership
of the OTR whenever the EPA has ``reason to believe'' a state or
portion of a state is

significantly contributing to nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The granting of this petition is not itself a revision to
Maine's SIP, and all EPA-approved elements of the state's SIP remain
in place and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments Regarding Consistency With CAA Section 184
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA misapplies the Chevron
doctrine in its statutory interpretation by failing to discuss CAA
section 184(a), which applies the removal and addition procedures of
CAA section 176(a)(1) and (a)(2) to the OTR, ``except to the extent
inconsistent with the provisions of this section.'' The commenter
claims that the proposal to remove portions of Maine is inconsistent
with CAA section 184(b)(1)(B), which it interprets to require state-
wide implementation of RACT for sources covered by a CTG, regardless of
whether that portion of the state is in the OTR, because if the EPA's
proposal were finalized, Maine would only be required to have CTG RACT
for those sources in the portions of the state remaining in the OTR.
The commenter also claims that the proposal is inconsistent with CAA
section 184(d), because that provision instructed the EPA to promulgate
criteria for purposes of determining the contribution of sources in one
area to concentrations of ozone in other areas that are nonattainment
for ozone. The commenter asserts that because the EPA never promulgated
such criteria, the EPA cannot grant Maine's petition. Moreover, the
commenter argues that the EPA cannot claim that it used the best
available air quality modeling techniques and best available data in
its proposal, because ``[t]he determination here does not use OSAT/
APCA. Instead, it relies on weaker analyses: HYSPLIT back-trajectories
and emissions trends.'' With respect to air quality monitoring, the
commenter states that it is ``implausible'' that the EPA's promulgated
air quality monitoring network requirements satisfy the requirement in
section 184(d) to use the ``best available'' air quality monitoring
techniques. Finally, the commenter states that the EPA cannot claim
that it is using the ``best available'' monitoring data for its
proposal because more current data for all OTR states are available and
argues that the EPA has provided no basis in its record that the ozone
monitoring network criteria have been met.
    Response: The commenter is correct that CAA section 176A(a)(2)
governs the Agency's action on Maine's request to remove part of its
state from the OTR by virtue of CAA section 184(a)'s application of
176A(a)(2) to states in the OTR. However, we disagree with the
commenter that granting Maine's request is ``inconsistent with the
provisions of'' CAA section 184. We respond to each of the commenter's
assertions on this point in turn.
    The commenter contends that to be ``consistent'' with CAA section
184, whenever approving the removal of any portion of a state from the
OTR under CAA section 176A(a)(2), the EPA would need to clearly require
the state to prepare SIP submissions and require implementation of RACT
for all sources of VOCs covered by a CTG throughout the entire state,
regardless of whether those sources are located in the portions of the
state located in the OTR. The commenter claims that ``the plain
language of section 184(b)(1)(B)'' requires this by virtue of the
reference in that provision to the ``state'' rather than to the area of
the state in the OTR. We do not agree. We think the statutory context
and legislative history support the EPA's longstanding interpretation
that the CAA section 184(b) SIP requirements for the OTR apply only
within the OTR, and not in the portions of a state that are outside the
region. We recognize that CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) could be read, as
the commenter suggests, to impose VOC CTG RACT requirements statewide,
even for sources that are not in the portions of states that are in the
OTR. But we do not think this is the only, or even a better, reading of
the statute.
    First, the vast majority of the jurisdictions comprising the OTR
are entire states--of the 13 entities that make up the OTR (including
the District of Columbia), 12 have their entire jurisdiction in the
region. Only Virginia, of which a very small portion of the state is in
the ``Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the
District of Columbia,'' did not have its entire state boundary included
in the OTR. It is therefore not surprising that in CAA section
184(b)(1)(B), the statute would use the term ``all sources . . . in the
State'' to describe the extent of the VOC RACT requirement even if what
was intended was that the OTR requirements would apply only within the
OTR.
    Second, the last sentence of CAA section 184(b) defines the
threshold for major stationary sources ``[f]or purposes of this
section'' and states that such sources are subject to the requirements
that would apply ``if the area'' was classified as a Moderate ozone
nonattainment area (emphasis added). This requirement, which imposes
Moderate area requirements--including NOX RACT for major
stationary sources--applies only to those areas of a state which are in
the OTR. Commenter's interpretation would therefore mean that Congress
imposed a system of OTR controls that required statewide stationary
source obligations for VOC CTG RACT but OTR-specific obligations for
all other major stationary source requirements and I/M. We think it
very unlikely that Congress would have set up a bifurcated approach in
which stationary sources would be subject to some OTR requirements but
not others, with no explanation in the legislative history (see below).
    Third, as the commenter notes, the EPA has been interpreting the
OTR requirements in CAA section 184(b) to apply only to areas within
the OTR since the 1990 Amendments were passed, and in the intervening
30 years, Congress has never indicated that the Agency's interpretation
was incorrect. See 57 FR 13527, n.10 (April 16, 1992) (``Each state in
a transport region must adopt VOC RACT regulations for sources located
within that portion of the State included in a transport region[.]'');
id. (``EPA interprets section 176A as establishing a process whereby a
portion of a State can be removed from the region and exempted from the
requirements[.]'').
    Fourth, we do not agree with the commenter that a comparison of the
drafting of CAA sections 184(b)(1)(A) and (B) demonstrates that
statewide CTG RACT is compelled regardless of OTR boundaries. The
commenter emphasizes the statute's use of the term ``areas'' in CAA
section 184(b)(1)(A) to assert that Congress could have used the term
``areas'' in CAA section 184(b)(1)(B) had it intended to limit CTG RACT
requirements to only those areas of a state that are within the OTR.
But there is a more natural reason for the use of the term ``areas'' in
CAA section 184(b)(1)(A)--that provision on its face is a requirement
designed specifically for urban areas that experience relatively higher
volumes of mobile sources. The provision states ``that each area in
such State that is in an ozone transport region, and that is a
metropolitan statistical area or part thereof with a population of
100,000 or more . . .'' are subject to enhanced vehicle inspection and
maintenance requirements. The use of the term ``area'' in that
provision naturally flows from the fact that this requirement is
limited to metropolitan areas and linguistically fits with the second
clause of the sentence--``and that is a metropolitan statistical
area.'' This reason for the use of the term ``area'' in CAA section
184(b)(1)(A) is at least as plausible as the reasoning commenter puts
forth. Commenter's argument would have it that Congress intended--
without any other indication in the statute or legislative history--to
require

just one of the OTR requirements to apply statewide, regardless of OTR
status, while all other requirements in CAA section 184(b) are limited
only to that area of the state in the OTR.
    Fifth, adopting commenter's interpretation would also undercut the
purpose of the authority granted to the EPA in CAA section 176A(a)(1)
and (2) to add or remove portions of a state to the OTR. If one of the
major, substantive OTR requirements applies statewide, without regard
to which portions of that state were in the OTR or not, there would be
little purpose to providing the Agency with the authority to tailor the
boundaries of the OTR not to include entire states. While commenter may
view the authority to tailor transport region boundaries as somehow
``inconsistent'' with CAA section 184, Congress did just that when it
included only the northern portion of Virginia in the OTR by statute,
in CAA section 184.
    We also do not think the legislative history supports commenter's
interpretation. Nothing in the House Report accompanying the Amendments
suggests Congress intended OTR requirements to be imposed outside of
the OTR (e.g., application of VOC CTG RACT in the entire state of
Virginia, as opposed to the portion of the state within the OTR). That
would have been a drastic departure from the overall structure of CAA
sections 176A and 184 about which we do not think Congress would have
been silent. There are also two amendments Congress considered that may
shed light on whether Congress was contemplating a state's inclusion in
the OTR as being the operative condition (commenter's interpretation)
or whether the actual inclusion of an area in the OTR was the operative
condition for imposing OTR requirements (the EPA's interpretation).
During the development of the 1990 Amendments, Congress considered
creating a special permit program for small sources. In delineating the
small sources that would need such a program, Congress identified those
``located within a nonattainment area, ozone transport area, or subject
to a standard under section 112 consistent with the other provisions of
this title.'' H.R. Rep. 101-490 (May 17, 1990) (see Sec. 407) (emphasis
added). Similarly, in drafting a version of the NOX waiver
provision that was ultimately adopted in CAA section 182(f), Congress
contemplated two types of determinations under which major stationary
source plan provisions would not apply for major stationary sources of
NOX--one type of determination for non-OTR areas and a
different type of determination for OTR areas. While these provisions
were not ultimately adopted in the 1990 Amendments, they shed light on
what the legislative drafters considered to be the operative trigger
for the application of requirements: In neither of these provisions
does the drafted language suggest that a source's location within a
state that was in the OTR to be the trigger; instead, both drafts
suggest an intent that being in the OTR was the condition upon which
the difference in the waiver requirements would hinge.
    Finally, commenter does not offer any coherent policy rationale for
its interpretation of CAA section 184(a)(1)(B). As explained
previously, under this interpretation, RACT for sources of VOCs covered
by a CTG would apply statewide for any state if any portion of that
state is in the OTR. But under the last sentence of CAA section 184(b),
RACT for major stationary sources of NOX only applies in the
areas of a state within the OTR. The EPA has previously explained that
``authoritative assessments of ozone control approaches have concluded
that VOC reductions are generally most effective for addressing ozone
locally, including in dense urbanized areas and `immediately downwind.'
'' 82 FR 51238, 51248 (November 3, 2017) (citing 82 FR 6517; 76 FR
48222; and 63 FR 57381). Further,

    The EPA continues to believe that NOX emission
reductions strategies are more effective than VOC reductions in
lowering ozone concentrations over longer distances. The EPA
believes that regional ozone formation is primarily due to
NOX, but VOCs are also important because VOCs influence
how efficiently ozone is produced by NOX, particularly in
dense urban areas. Reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions will
typically have less of an impact on the long-range transport of
ozone, although these emissions reductions can be effective in
reducing ozone in nearby urban areas where ozone production may be
limited by the availability of VOCs. Therefore, a combination of
localized VOC reductions in urban areas with additional
NOX reductions across a larger region will help to reduce
ozone and precursors in nonattainment areas, as well as downwind
transport across the eastern U.S. 82 FR 51238.

    Commenter's interpretation thus runs contrary to the EPA's
longstanding understanding of how to most effectively reduce ozone
levels: If any ozone precursor should be reduced on a broader
geographic scale, it should arguably be NOX, not VOCs. But
commenter's rendering of the statute would produce the opposite result,
imposing VOC-reduction requirements on a broad geographic scale beyond
the borders of the OTR, while NOX RACT is limited to the OTR
itself.
    We also do not agree with the commenter's assertion that granting
Maine's petition would not be ``consistent'' with CAA section 184
because the EPA did not promulgate criteria precisely according to CAA
section 184(d). We do not think this is a reasonable way to read the
intersection of the statutory provisions at issue, particularly
because, contrary to commenter's assertion, the EPA has substantively
satisfied Congress' aims in CAA section 184(d), both in general, and
with respect to its analysis of Maine's request. CAA section 184(d)
required the EPA, not later than 6 months after November 15, 1990, to
``promulgate criteria for purposes of determining the contribution of
sources in one area to concentrations of ozone in another area which is
a nonattainment area for ozone. Such criteria will require that the
best available air quality monitoring and modeling techniques be used
for purposes of making such determinations.''
    The EPA may not have issued a rule expressly addressing CAA section
184(d) by June 1991, but it is simply not the case that the Agency has
not issued and continually updated criteria for the purposes of
determining how upwind contributions affect downwind ozone air quality.
The EPA has issued multiple rules related to the interstate transport
of ozone under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and for each of these
rules, the Agency has put forth its criteria for determining linkages
and contributions between upwind areas and downwind air quality
problems (both for areas in nonattainment, per CAA section 184(d), but
also for areas that may be meeting the NAAQS but could face problems
maintaining the standards). In each of these transport rules, the
Agency has used quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data
and state-of-the-science air quality modeling.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document
for the NOX SIP Call, September 23, 1998 (explaining the
EPA's use of two types of modeling to assess interstate
contributions--state-by-state zero-out modeling using UAM-V and
state-by-state source apportionment modeling using CAMx APCA),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/nox_sip.pdf; Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document, June 2011 (setting forth the EPA's use of source
apportionment techniques in CAMx air quality modeling to quantify
interstate contributions), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-06/documents/epa-hq-oar-2009-0491-4140.pdf; Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Final Revised
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, March 2020 (reiterating the
EPA's use of the OSAT/APCA technique in CAMx air quality modeling),
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/air_quality_modeling_tsd_final_revised_csapr_update.pdf.

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

    The commenter acknowledges the body of work the EPA has developed
with respect to assessing interstate contributions using air quality
modeling in these transport rules, but erroneously claims that those
techniques and expertise were not used in the proposed action. Agreeing
that the Ozone Source Apportionment Technology (OSAT)/Anthropogenic
Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA) technique in the CAMx air
quality model is an ``available'' tool and noting that the EPA has
previously identified this technique to be an appropriate tool for
quantifying interstate air quality contributions, the commenter states,
``The [proposed] determination does not use OSAT/APCA. Instead, it
relies on weaker analyses: HYSPLIT back-trajectories and emissions
trends.'' This is simply incorrect. In its proposal analyzing Maine's
request, the EPA used the same source apportionment modeling techniques
employed by all of the transport rules. The EPA additionally looked at
back trajectories under HYSPLIT and analyzed relevant emissions
inventory data. We also do not agree with the commenter's contention
that the EPA's proposal cannot move forward because it relied on
``stale'' monitoring data, which it claims cannot be the ``best
available.'' We note that CAA section 184(d) requires the use of ``the
best available air quality monitoring and modeling techniques''
(emphasis added). We do not read this provision to prohibit the Agency
from moving forward with an action if newer data became available or
certified shortly before issuance of that action; and in any case, the
Agency considered up-to-date monitoring data in the context of its
proposal and for this final action.
IV. Comments Regarding Exempting an Area of the OTR From OTR
Requirements for Future Ozone Standards
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA cannot exempt an OTR
area from OTR requirements for future ozone standards. The commenter
states that under the plain text of CAA section 176A(a), the
establishment of a transport region as well as the addition and removal
of a state or portion of a state from that region is based on a
demonstration with respect to a particular standard (emphasizing the
statute's use of the term ``the standard''). The commenter further
argues that even if the statute is ambiguous, that it is arbitrary and
capricious to remove a state from the OTR with respect to a future
standard when the EPA does not know when that standard will be
promulgated, what its level will be, and whether the subject area will
exceed the contribution threshold for that standard. The commenter
states that because the EPA's assessment of nonattainment and
maintenance issues is tied to particular ozone standards, the EPA may
not exempt areas from future ozone standards.
    Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter that CAA
section 176A(a)(1) and (2)'s reference to ``the standard'' requires a
reading of the Act such that the EPA's addition or removal of a state
or portion of a state from the OTR must be specific only to one ozone
standard. Such a reading is contrary to the larger statutory context
and design, and is not compelled by the language of the Act. The EPA
has interpreted the establishment of ozone transport regions, including
the Congressionally created OTR in CAA section 184(a), to endure across
updates to the NAAQS. We have never interpreted the Act to require a
new reconstitution of an OTR specific to each NAAQS. Implementing the
Act in the way that commenter suggests is required would mean that
states would be added or removed, but only as to specific standards,
and so a region could be a patchwork of states subject to different
requirements depending on whether they were added or removed as to
certain NAAQS for that CAA.
    The commenter ignores the other references to the NAAQS present in
CAA section 176A and section 184, which as the commenter notes, cross-
references section 176A and governs the substantive requirements that
apply to OTR states and other states designated in an ozone transport
region. In CAA section 176A(a), the statute provides that ``whenever .
. . the Administrator has reason to believe'' that interstate transport
of pollutants contributes significantly to a violation of ``a national
ambient air quality standard,'' the Administrator may establish a
transport region for ``such pollutant'' that includes the involved
states (emphasis added). The language governing the timing of an
establishment of an OTR is therefore not tied to the promulgation of a
NAAQS (unlike, for example, states' obligations to update their SIPs to
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport obligations
within 3 years of the promulgation of a standard). Further, the basis
for creating a transport region is the Administrator's belief that
there is significant contribution to a violation of ``a'' NAAQS, not
one particular NAAQS. That section also makes clear that the
establishment of the transport region is for ``such pollutant,'' not
such standard. The statutory language and structure comports with the
EPA's longstanding interpretation of a transport region being
established and existing across updates to a standard. Section 184
similarly references the establishment of transport regions ``for
ozone'' (see, e.g., CAA section 184(a), section 184(b)(1), section
184(c)(1)).
    We do not agree that it is arbitrary and capricious to remove a
state or portion of a state from general transport region obligations
when they have met the required showing under CAA section 176A(a)(2)
based on the NAAQS in effect at the time of the action. If, under a
future ozone standard the EPA finds that there is significant
contribution from Maine or other states to a violation of that
standard, CAA section 176A(a)(1) clearly provides authority for the EPA
to add such state or portion of a state to a transport region. Further,
commenter's argument on this point would reduce CAA section 176A(a)(2)
to a nullity. Effectively, no state or portion of a state could ever be
removed from a transport region because there is always the
hypothetical chance that the Agency will promulgate some more stringent
NAAQS in the future and would be unable to evaluate transport without
knowing what that standard is. The Congress that enacted CAA section
176A(a)(2) could not have intended this result.
V. Comments Regarding Environmental Justice
    Comment: Two commenters contend that the EPA failed to consider
environmental justice. One commenter contends that the EPA failed to
consider Executive Order 12898 and notes that the EPA's EJSCREEN tool
shows that there are potentially impacted environmental justice
communities in Maine and other nearby states. The commenter contends
that the counties where the EPA proposes to allow more emissions are
also home to low-income households, and, in some instances, also tribal
communities. The commenter points out that the areas the EPA proposes
to remove from the OTR include populations that are sensitive to ozone
pollution (the elderly, children and adults active outdoors, and people
with asthma and other respiratory diseases). In particular, the
commenter notes that Maine has a higher incidence of asthma among
adults (11.2 percent) compared to the national average (7.7 percent),
and that certain counties such as Androscoggin County, most of which is
to be removed from the OTR, has an

even higher incidence (14 percent of all county residents between 2011-
2014). Another commenter suggests that the EPA's action may contravene
the CAA's purpose, set out in CAA section 101(b)(1), to assure that air
quality is protected and enhanced while supporting the productive
capacity of all regions in the country.
    Response: Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, the EPA is directed,
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice (EJ) part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations.
Consistent with E.O. 12898 and the Presidential Memorandum that
accompanies it, the EPA's EJ policies promote justice by focusing
attention and efforts on addressing the types of EJ harms and risks
that are prevalent among minority, low-income, and indigenous
populations. E.O. 12898 and the EPA's EJ policies do not mandate
particular outcomes from an action, but they require that decisions
involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. With
respect to this petition, the EPA determined that removing the
requested areas from the OTR will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of any ozone NAAQS in any
area of the OTR, including areas where there are minority and low-
income populations.
    The EPA acknowledges that the area to be removed from the OTR
includes areas with minority populations and low-income populations. Of
the approximately 737,000 people who live in the area to be removed
from the OTR, approximately 5.7 percent identify as people of color,
and approximately 35 percent are identified as low income.\25\ Maine
has four federally recognized tribes: The Passamaquoddy, Penobscot,
Maliseet and Micmac tribes. All four tribes include populations that
live in the area to be removed from the OTR. Additionally, there are
populations in the area to be removed from the OTR that could be
sensitive to ozone, including children and those with pre-existing
health conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD). Maine has one of the highest rates of adult asthma in the
United States.\26\ Asthma is a chronic lung disease with symptoms
including wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath.
A wide range of indoor and outdoor allergens and irritants can trigger
or exacerbate asthma, including tobacco smoke, pollen, pet dander,
mites, mold, and air pollution from stationary and mobile sources.\27\
Pollutants including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and
PM2.5 have been shown to trigger or exacerbate asthma
symptoms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool
(EJSCREEN), which utilizes U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey (ACS) data from 2014-2018. The American Community Survey
information and data is available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs. The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
    \26\ ``Current Asthma Demographics'' Current Adult Asthma by
State. American Lung Association. Data from Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
2011-2018. Analysis by the American Lung Association Epidemiology
and Statistics Unit. https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/asthma-trends-brief/current-demographics.
    \27\ ``Common Asthma Triggers'' Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/triggers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2019, the adult asthma rate in Maine was 11.8 percent, as
compared to 8.0 percent for the United States.\28\ While higher than
the adult asthma rate in the United States, the adult asthma rate in
Maine does not necessarily correlate with high ozone levels. For
example, of the ozone monitoring sites in Maine located in areas that
will be removed from the OTR, the monitor with the highest 2020 ozone
design value of 57 ppb (and historically having higher design values)
is located in Washington County, a county with one of the lowest rates
of adult asthma in Maine.29 30 Further, other factors, such
as the state's dense forests, high pollen levels, and heavy reliance on
wood burning stoves for home heating, contribute to the high rate of
asthma in Maine.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Most Recent Asthma State or Territory Data'' State or
Territory Adult Current Asthma Prevalence by State or Territory
(2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_data_states.htm.
    \29\ See Table 2 for current design values and the ozone design
value spreadsheet located in the docket for this action for
historical design values.
    \30\ For asthma data, see information provided in the Maine
Environmental Public Health Tracking Program using data provided by
the Maine Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and analyzed by
the Chronic Disease & Maternal & Child Health Epidemiology Team.
Available at https://data.mainepublichealth.gov/tracking/data-topics/asthma-content.
    \31\ ``Asthma in Maine'' Maine Center for Disease Control and
Prevention Division of Disease Prevention. Maine Department of
Health and Human Services. https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/population-health/mat/asthma-information/asthma-in-maine.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has identified minority, low-income, and other at-risk
populations that could be impacted by this action and considered
whether removal of the requested part of Maine from the OTR could have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on those populations. As explained above in the response to
comments about a potential increase in ozone precursor emissions, the
EPA believes that a substantial increase in ozone precursor emissions
resulting from this action is highly unlikely in any area of Maine or
the OTR. Thus, the EPA does not expect the action to result in
disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population in Maine or the OTR, including minority, low-
income, and at-risk populations.

IV. Final Action To Grant Maine's CAA Section 176A Petition

    Based on the considerations outlined at proposal, consideration of
all public comments, and for the reasons described in this notice, the
EPA finds that the portion of the state requested to be removed from
the OTR does not contribute to a violation of any ozone standard in any
area of the OTR, and that further control of emissions from that
portion of Maine will not significantly contribute to the attainment of
any ozone standard in any area of the OTR. Thus, the EPA is granting
Maine's CAA section 176A petition to remove a portion of the state from
the OTR.

V. Judicial Review and Determinations Under Sections 307(b)(1) and
307(d) of the CAA

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit within 60 days of publication of any final
action. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this rule will not affect the finality of the rule for the purposes of
judicial review nor will it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. The Administrator of the EPA, hereby,
determines that this action is subject to CAA section 307(d), as
authorized by CAA section 307(d)(1)(V).

VI. Statutory Authority

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon oxides,
Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, National parks,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Wilderness areas.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

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

0
2. Subpart E, consisting of Sec. Sec.  81.455 and 81.457, is added to
read as follows:

Subpart E--Identification of Interstate Transport Regions

Sec.  81.455   Scope.

    This subpart identifies interstate transport regions established
for national ambient air quality standards pursuant to section 184 or
section 176A of the Clean Air Act.

Sec.  81.457   Ozone Transport Region.

    Except as provided in paragraph (a), the Ozone Transport Region is
comprised of the areas identified by Congress under 42 U.S.C. 7511c(a).
    (a) Ozone Transport Region boundary. As of March 14, 2022, the
boundary for the Ozone Transport Region consists of the entire States
of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; portions of
Maine identified in this section under Table 1; and the Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia
and the following counties and cities in Virginia: Arlington County,
Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Strafford
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas
City, and Manassas Park City.

 Table 1 to Paragraph (a)--Maine Towns and Cities in the Ozone Transport
                                 Region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Maine towns and cities in the ozone transport region
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin County (only the following town): Durham.
Cumberland County (only the following towns and cities): Brunswick, Cape
 Elizabeth, Casco, Cumberland, Falmouth, Freeport, Frye Island, Gorham,
 Gray, Harpswell, Long Island, New Gloucester, North Yarmouth, Portland,
 Pownal, Raymond, Scarborough, South Portland, Standish, Westbrook,
 Windham, and Yarmouth.
Hancock County (only the following towns and cities): Bar Harbor, Blue
 Hill, Brooklin, Brooksville, Cranberry Isles, Deer Isle, Frenchboro,
 Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Mount Desert, Sedwick, Sorrento,
 Southwest Harbor, Stonington, Sullivan, Surry, Swans Island, Tremont,
 Trenton, and Winter Harbor.
Knox County (only the following towns and cities): Camden, Criehaven,
 Cushing, Friendship, Isle au Haut, Matinicus Isle, Muscle Ridge Shoals,
 North Haven, Owls Head, Rockland, Rockport, St. George, South
 Thomaston, Thomaston, Vinalhaven, and Warren.
Lincoln County (only the following towns and cities): Alna, Boothbay,
 Boothbay Harbor, Breman, Bristol, Damariscotta, Dresden, Edgecomb,
 Monhegan, Newcastle, Nobleboro, South Bristol, Southport, Waldoboro,
 Westport, and Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc County (all towns and cities).
Waldo County (only the following town): Islesboro.
York County (only the following towns and cities): Alfred, Arundel,
 Berwick, Biddeford, Buxton, Dayton, Eliot, Hollis, Kennebunk,
 Kennebunkport, Kittery, Limington, Lyman, North Berwick, Ogunquit, Old
 Orchard Beach, Saco, Sanford, South Berwick, Wells, and York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Applicability. As of March 14, 2022, the provisions of 42
U.S.C. 7511c will no longer be applicable in the following areas of
Maine: The State of Maine, with the exception of the towns and cities
listed in this section under table 1 to paragraph (a).

[FR Doc. 2022-02653 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P