[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60897-60925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20460]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this 
action, contact Emily Millar, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01 Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709; telephone number: 919-541-2619; email address: 
[email protected]; or Robert Lingard, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; by telephone number: 919-541-5272; 
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    The following is an outline of the Preamble.

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

[[Page 60898]]

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

I. Proposed Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 60899]]



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

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

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

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

C. Proposed Moderate Area SIP Submission and Controls Implementation 
Deadlines

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

[[Page 60900]]

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

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

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

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

II. Responses to Comments and Final Actions

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

[[Page 60901]]



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

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

A. Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date

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

[[Page 60902]]

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

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

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

B. Extension of the Marginal Area Attainment Date

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 60903]]

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

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

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

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

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

C. Determinations of Failure To Attain and Reclassification

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

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

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

[[Page 60904]]

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

D. International Transport and Requirements for CAA Section 179B

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

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

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

[[Page 60905]]

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

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

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

[[Page 60906]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Moderate Area SIP Submission and Controls Implementation Deadlines

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

[[Page 60907]]

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

[[Page 60908]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 60909]]

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

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

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

[[Page 60910]]

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

III. Environmental Justice (EJ) Impacts

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

[[Page 60911]]

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Judicial Review

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

[[Page 60912]]

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

[[Page 60913]]

Subpart D--Arizona

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


Sec.  52.153  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

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

Subpart F--California

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


Sec.  52.282  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

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

Subpart L-- Georgia

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


Sec.  52.577  Determination of attainment.

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

Subpart TT-- Utah

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


Sec.  52.2332  Control strategy: Ozone.

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

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

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

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

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


Sec.  81.303  Arizona.



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

[[Page 60914]]

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

[[Page 60915]]

 
 T1S, R3E; T1S, R4E; T1S,
 R5E; T1S, R6E; T1S, R7E;
 T1S, R1W; T1S, R2W; T1S,
 R3W; T1S, R4W; T1S, R5W;
 T1S, R6W; T2S, R1E (except
 that portion in Indian
 Country); T2S, R5E; T2S,
 R6E; T2S, R7E; T2S, R1W;
 T2S, R2W; T2S, R3W; T2S,
 R4W; T2S, R5W; T3S, R1E;
 T3S, R1W; T3S, R2W; T3S,
 R3W; T3S, R4W; T3S, R5W;
 T4S, R1E; T4S, R1W; T4S,
 R2W; T4S, R3W; T4S, R4W;
 T4S, R5W; T5S, R4W (Sections
 1 through 22 and 27 through
 34).
    Pinal County (part):
        T1N, R8E; T1N, R9E;
         T1N, R10E; T1S, R8E;
         T1S, R9E; T1S, R10E;
         T2S, R8E (Sections 1
         through 10, 15
         through 22, and 27
         through 34); T2S,
         R9E (Sections 1
         through 6); T2S,
         R10E (Sections 1
         through 6); T3S, R7E
         (Sections 1 through
         6, 11 through 14, 23
         through 26, and 35
         through 36); T3S,
         R8E (Sections 3
         through 10, 15
         through 22, and 27
         through 34).
    Fort McDowell Yavapai
     Nation.
    Gila River Indian
     Community of the Gila
     River Indian
     Reservation, Arizona.
        Includes only non-
         contiguous areas of
         Indian country known
         as ``parcels M &
         N''.\3\
    Tohono O'odham Nation of
     Arizona.
    Salt River Pima-Maricopa
     Indian Community of the
     Salt River Reservation.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ See Section 3.0 of the EPA's technical support document for Arizona, titled ``Arizona Final Area
  Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Technical Support Document (TSD),'' for
  more information and a map showing the locations of ``parcels M & N'' (available in Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
  0548).

* * * * *

0
9. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California-2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Mariposa County, CA'' and ``Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission 
Indians of the Pechanga Reservation'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.305   California.

* * * * *

                                       California--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Mariposa County, CA..........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Mariposa County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pechanga Band of               ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Luise[ntilde]o Mission
 Indians of the Pechanga
 Reservation:
    Includes the main body of
     the contiguous Pechanga
     Band Reservation and the
     noncontiguous area known
     as Pu'eska Mountain,
     excluding non-contiguous
     tribal lands in the Los
     Angeles-South Coast Air
     Basin, CA (Meadowbrook
     parcel). \3\
 

[[Page 60916]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ See Section 23.0 of the EPA's technical support document for California, titled ``California Final Area
  Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Technical Support Document (TSD),'' for
  more information and maps showing the locations of the main body of the reservation and the non-contiguous
  Pu'eska Mountain and Meadowbrook lands (available in Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548).

* * * * *

0
10. Section 81.306 is amended in the table for ``Colorado--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Denver Metro/North Front Range, CO'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.306   Colorado.

* * * * *

                                        Colorado--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Metro/North Front       ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Range, CO.
    Adams County.
    Arapahoe County.
    Boulder County.
    Broomfield County.
    Denver County.
    Douglas County.
    Jefferson County.
    Larimer County (part).
        Including the portion
         of Rocky Mountain
         National Park
         therein and that
         portion of the
         county that lies
         south of a line
         described as
         follows: Beginning
         at a point on
         Larimer County's
         eastern boundary and
         Weld County's
         western boundary
         intersected by 40
         degrees, 42 minutes,
         and 47.1 seconds
         north latitude,
         proceed west to a
         point defined by the
         intersection of 40
         degrees, 42 minutes,
         47.1 seconds north
         latitude and 105
         degrees, 29 minutes,
         and 40.0 seconds
         west longitude,
         thence proceed south
         on 105 degrees, 29
         minutes, 40.0
         seconds west
         longitude to the
         inter-section with
         40 degrees, 33
         minutes and 17.4
         seconds north
         latitude, thence
         proceed west on 40
         degrees, 33 minutes,
         17.4 seconds north
         latitude until this
         line intersects
         Larimer County's
         western boundary and
         Grand County's
         eastern boundary.
    Weld County..............  12/30/2021 \3\..
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ EPA revised the nonattainment boundary in response to a court decision, which did not vacate any
  designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but which remanded the designation for the identified county. Because
  this additional area is part of a previously designated nonattainment area, the implementation dates for the
  overall nonattainment area (e.g., the August 3, 2021 attainment date) remain unchanged regardless of this
  later designation date.


[[Page 60917]]

* * * * *

0
11. Section 81.307 is amended in the table for ``Connecticut--2015 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Greater Connecticut, CT'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.307   Connecticut.

* * * * *

                                      Connecticut--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Greater Connecticut, CT......  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Hartford County.
    Litchfield County.
    New London County.
    Tolland County.
    Windham County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
12. Section 81.308 is amended in the table for ``Delaware--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.308  Delaware.

* * * * *

                                        Delaware--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia-Wilmington-       ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.
    New Castle County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
13. Section 81.309 is amended in the table for ``District of Columbia--
2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry 
for ``Washington, DC-MD-VA'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.309  District of Columbia.

* * * * *

                                  District of Columbia--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA.........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    District of Columbia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
14. Section 81.314 is amended in the table for ``Illinois--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Chicago, IL-IN-

[[Page 60918]]

WI'' and ``St. Louis, MO-IL'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                                        Illinois--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL-IN-WI............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Cook County.
    DuPage County.
    Grundy County (part).
Aux Sable Township and Goose
 Lake Township:
    Kane County.
    Kendall County (part).
Oswego Township:
    Lake County.
    McHenry County             July 14,
                                2021.\3\.
    Will County.
St. Louis, MO-IL:
    Madison County.
    Monroe County              July 14,
                                2021.\3\.
    St. Clair County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ EPA revised the nonattainment boundary in response to a court decision, which did not vacate any
  designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but which remanded the designation for the identified county. Because
  this additional area is part of a previously designated nonattainment area, the implementation dates for the
  overall nonattainment area (e.g., the August 3, 2021 attainment date) remain unchanged regardless of this
  later designation date.

* * * * *

0
15. Section 81.315 is amended in the table for ``Indiana--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Chicago, IL-IN-WI'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                        Indiana--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, IL-IN-WI............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Lake County (part).
Calumet Township, Hobart
 Township, North Township,
 Ross Township, and St. John
 Township.
    Porter County (part).....  July 14, 2021\3\
Center Township, Jackson
 Township, Liberty Township,
 Pine Township, Portage
 Township, Union Township,
 Washington Township, and
 Westchester Township.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ EPA revised the nonattainment boundary in response to a court decision, which did not vacate any
  designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but which remanded the designation for the identified county. Because
  this additional area is part of a previously designated nonattainment area, the implementation dates for the
  overall nonattainment area (e.g., the August 3, 2021 attainment date) remain unchanged regardless of this
  later designation date.

* * * * *

0
16. Section 81.318 is amended in the table for ``Kentucky--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Cincinnati, OH-KY'' and ``Louisville, KY-IN'' to read as follows:

[[Page 60919]]

Sec.  81.318  Kentucky.

* * * * *

                                        Kentucky--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             (Primary and secondary)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati, OH-KY............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Boone County (part):
        The entire county
         except for 2010 US
         Census Tracts 706.01
         and 706.04.
    Campbell County (part):
        The entire county
         except for 2010 US
         Census Tracts 520.01
         and 520.02.
    Kenton County (part):
        The entire county
         except for 2010 US
         Census Tracts 637.01
         and 637.02.
Louisville, KY-IN............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Bullitt County.
    Jefferson County.
    Oldham County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
17. Section 81.321 is amended in the table for ``Maryland--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Baltimore, MD'', ``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-
DE'' and ``Washington, DC-MD-VA'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.321  Maryland.

* * * * *

                                        Maryland--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, MD................  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Anne Arundel County.
    Baltimore County.
    Carroll County.
    Harford County.
    Howard County.
    City of Baltimore.
Philadelphia-Wilmington-       ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.
    Cecil County.
Washington, DC-MD-VA.........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Calvert County.
    Charles County.
    Fredrick County.
    Montgomery County.
    Prince George's County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
18. Section 81.323 is amended in the table for ``Michigan--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for

[[Page 60920]]

``Allegan County, MI'', ``Berrien County, MI'' and ``Muskegon County, 
MI'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.323  Michigan.

* * * * *

                                        Michigan--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegan County, MI...........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Allegan County (part):
        Casco Township,
         Cheshire Township,
         City of Douglas,
         City of Holland,
         City of Saugatuck,
         Clyde Township,
         Fillmore Township,
         Ganges Township,
         Heath Township,
         Laketown Township,
         Lee Township,
         Manilus Township,
         Overisel Township,
         Saugatuck Township,
         and Valley Township.
Berrien County, MI...........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Berrien County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Muskegon County, MI..........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Muskegon County (part):
        Blue Lake Township,
         City of Montague,
         City of Muskegon,
         City of Muskegon
         Heights, City of
         North Muskegon, City
         of Roosevelt Park,
         City of Whitehall,
         Dalton Township,
         (incl. Village of
         Lakewood Club),
         Fruitland Township,
         Fruitport Township,
         (incl. Village of
         Fruitport) Laketon
         Township, Montague
         Township, Muskegon
         Township, Norton
         Shores Township,
         White River
         Township, and
         Whitehall Township.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
19. Section 81.326 is amended in the table for ``Missouri--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for ``St. 
Louis, MO-IL'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.326  Missouri.

* * * * *

                                        Missouri--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis, MO-IL:............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Franklin County (part).
Boles Township:
    Jefferson County.........  July 14, 2021
                                \3\.
    St. Charles County.
    St. Louis County.
    City of St. Louis.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

[[Page 60921]]

 
\3\ EPA revised the nonattainment boundary in response to a court decision, which did not vacate any
  designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but which remanded the designation for the identified county. Because
  this additional area is part of a previously designated nonattainment area, the implementation dates for the
  overall nonattainment area (e.g., the August 3, 2021 attainment date) remain unchanged regardless of this
  later designation date.

* * * * *

0
20. Section 81.331 is amended in the table for ``New Jersey--2015 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.331  New Jersey.

* * * * *

                                       New Jersey--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Philadelphia-Wilmington-       ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.
    Atlantic County.
    Burlington County.
    Camden County.
    Cape May County.
    Cumberland County.
    Gloucester County.
    Mercer County.
    Ocean County.
    Salem County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
21. Section 81.336 is amended in the table for ``Ohio--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Cleveland, OH'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                          Ohio--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland, OH................  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Cuyahoga County.
    Geauga County.
    Lake County.
    Lorain County.
    Medina County.
    Portage County.
    Summit County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
22. Section 81.339 is amended in the table for ``Pennsylvania--2015 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

[[Page 60922]]



                                      Pennsylvania--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia-Wilmington-       ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE.
    Bucks County.
    Chester County.
    Delaware County.
    Montgomery County.
    Philadelphia County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
23. Section 81.344 is amended in the table for ``Texas--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Dallas-Fort Worth, TX'', ``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX'' and ``San 
Antonio, TX'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.344  Texas.

* * * * *

                                         Texas--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Collin County.
    Dallas County.
    Denton County.
    Ellis County.
    Johnson County.
    Kaufman County.
    Parker County.
    Tarrant County.
    Wise County..............
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,    ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
 TX.
    Brazoria County.
    Chambers County.
    Fort Bend County.
    Galveston County.
    Harris County.
    Montgomery County.
San Antonio, TX..............  9/24/2018.......  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Bexar County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
24. Section 81.345 is amended in the table for ``Utah--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Northern Wasatch Front, UT'' and ``Uinta Basin, UT'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.345  Utah.

* * * * *

[[Page 60923]]



                                          Utah--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Wasatch Front, UT...  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Weber County (part):
        All portions of Weber
         County west of and
         including Townships
         5, 6, and that
         portion of 7 North
         Range 1 West that
         are west of the
         ridgeline that
         traces the Wasatch
         Mountains from the
         southeast corner of
         the township to the
         easternmost
         extension of the
         county boundary
         within the township.
    Tooele County (part):
        In Tooele County, the
         following Townships
         or portions thereof
         as noted (including
         Tooele City):
        Township 1 South
         Range 3 West.
        Township 2 South
         Range 3 West.
        Township 3 South
         Range 3 West
        Township 3 South
         Range 4 West.
        Township 2 South
         Range 4 West.
        Township 2 South
         Range 5 West.
        Township 3 South
         Range 5 West.
        Township 3 South
         Range 6 West.
        Township 2 South
         Range 6 West.
        Township 1 South
         Range 6 West.
        Township 1 South
         Range 5 West.
        Township 1 South
         Range 4 West.
        Township 1 South
         Range 7 West.
        Township 2 South
         Range 7 West.
        Township 3 South
         Range 7 West.
        All Sections within
         Township 4 South
         Range 7 West except
         for Sections 29, 30,
         31 and 32.
        Township 4 South
         Range 6 West.
        Township 4 South
         Range 5 West.
        Township 4 South
         Range 4 West.
        Township 4 South
         Range 3 West.
    Salt Lake County.
    Davis County.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Uinta Basin, UT \3\ \4\......  8/03/22.........  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Marginal.
    Duchesne County (part):
        All land in Duchesne
         County below a
         contiguous external
         perimeter of 6,250
         ft. in elevation.
         All areas within
         that contiguous
         external perimeter
         are included in the
         nonattainment area--
         including mesas and
         buttes which may
         have an elevation
         greater than 6,250
         ft., but which are
         surrounded on all
         sides by land lower
         than 6,250 ft.
         Additionally, areas
         that fall outside
         the 6,250 ft.
         contiguous external
         perimeter that have
         elevations less than
         6,250 ft. are
         excluded from the
         nonattainment area.
         The boundary is
         defined by the 6,250
         ft. contour line
         created from the
         2013 USGS 10-meter
         seamless Digital
         Elevation Model
         (USGS NED n41w110\1/
         3\ arc-second 2013 1
         x 1 degree IMG).
    Uintah County (part):

[[Page 60924]]

 
        All land in Uintah
         County below a
         contiguous external
         perimeter of 6,250
         ft. in elevation.
         All areas within
         that contiguous
         external perimeter
         are included in the
         nonattainment area--
         including mesas and
         buttes which may
         have an elevation
         greater than 6,250
         ft., but which are
         surrounded on all
         sides by land lower
         than 6,250 ft.
         Additionally, areas
         that fall outside
         the 6,250 ft.
         contiguous external
         perimeter that have
         elevations less than
         6,250 ft. are
         excluded from the
         nonattainment area.
         The boundary is
         defined by the 6,250
         ft. contour line
         created from the
         2013 USGS 10-meter
         seamless Digital
         Elevation Model
         (USGS NED n41w110\1/
         3\ arc-second 2013 1
         x 1 degree IMG).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ The EPA is designating portions of the Uinta Basin as ``nonattainment,'' including both Tribal and State
  lands. The Ute Indian Tribe has air quality planning jurisdiction in the areas of Indian country included in
  the Uinta Basin nonattainment area, while the State of Utah has air quality planning jurisdiction in the areas
  of State land included in the Uinta Basin nonattainment area.
\4\ Attainment date is extended to August 3, 2022 for the Uinta Basin, UT, nonattainment area.

* * * * *

0
25. Section 81.347 is amended in the table for ``Virginia--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for 
``Washington, DC-MD-VA'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.347  Virginia.

* * * * *

                                        Virginia--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA.........  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Arlington County.
    Fairfax County.
    Loudoun County.
    Prince William County.
    Alexandria City.
    Fairfax City.
    Falls Church City.
    Manassas City.
    Manassas Park City.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
26. Section 81.350 is amended in the table for ``Wisconsin--2015 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entries for 
``Chicago, IL-IN-WI'', ``Milwaukee, WI'' and ``Sheboygan County, WI'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

[[Page 60925]]



                                       Wisconsin--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Designation                             Classification
     Designated area \1\      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\            Type            Date \2\                  Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chicago, IL-IN-WI............  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Kenosha County (part)....  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
The portion of Kenosha County
 bounded by the Lake Michigan
 shoreline on the East, the
 Kenosha County boundary on
 the North, the Kenosha
 County boundary on the
 South, and the I-94 corridor
 (including the entire
 corridor) on the West.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Milwaukee, WI................  ................  Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
    Milwaukee County.........  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
    Ozaukee County...........  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
    Racine County (part).....  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
Inclusive and east of the
 following roadways going
 from the northern county
 boundary to the southern
 county boundary: Highway 45
 to Washington Ave. to South
 Beaumont Ave.
    Washington County (part).  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
Inclusive and east of the
 following roadways going
 from the northern county
 boundary to the southern
 county boundary: Highway 45
 to Washington Ave. to South
 Beaumont Ave.
    Waukesha County (part)...  July 14, 2021
                                \5\.
Going from the western county
 boundary to the southern
 county boundary: Inclusive
 and north of I-94 and
 inclusive and east of
 Highway 67.
Sheboygan County, WI.........  July 14, 2021     Nonattainment...  November 7, 2022  Moderate.
                                \5\.
    Sheboygan County (part):
Inclusive and east of the
 following roadways with the
 boundary starting from north
 to south: Union Road which
 turns into County Road Y
 which turns into Highland
 Drive, to Lower Road which
 turns into Monroe Street, to
 Broadway/Main Street to
 Highway 32 which turns into
 Giddings Avenue to County
 Road W to County Road KW.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
 * * * * * * *
\5\ EPA revised the nonattainment boundary in response to a court decision, which did not vacate any
  designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but which remanded the designation for the identified county. Because
  this additional area is part of a previously designated nonattainment area, the associated implementation
  dates for the overall nonattainment area (e.g., the August 3, 2021 attainment date) remain unchanged
  regardless of this later designation date.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-20460 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P