Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 112 / Monday, June 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations direction provided by the D.C. Circuit to issue revised designations as expeditiously as practicable. 8 While the EPA does sometimes provide opportunities for outside input even when it is not required by the CAA, it is not appropriate to do so here given the courts direction, and the process that the EPA has already undertaken for these areas.
This approach is consistent with the EPAs treatment of the two remaining remanded counties addressed in the Agencys separate notification of availability published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The EPAs December 2017 initial designations and April 2018 final designations aligned with Texass and Colorados recommendations for El Paso and Weld Counties, respectively, and so at that time, the EPA had no need to, and did not, notify the states that the Agency planned to modify the states recommendations. However, the EPAs revised intended designations for those areas in response to the courts remand would modify the states recommendations. As such, the EPA is acting consistently with the CAA
requirement that the EPA notify the relevant states and allow them to demonstrate why any proposed modification is inappropriate, and undertaking a 120-day process.
VII. What air quality data have the EPA
used to designate the remanded areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS?
For the remanded counties and associated nonattainment areas addressed in this action, the EPA has reevaluated the designations under a uniform, nationwide analytical approach in considering the specific facts and circumstances of the areas using data and information available in the existing record.9 The EPA has primarily based the revised final ozone designations in this action on air quality monitoring data from the years 2014
2016, which were the most recent data that states were required to certify at the time the EPA notified the states of its intended modifications to their recommendations in December 2017.
Under 40 CFR 58.16, states are required to report all monitored ozone air quality data and associated quality assurance 8 Clean
Wisconsin, 964 F.2d at 1176.
existing record consists of data and other information provided by the EPA, state air agencies and the public in the time leading up to the April 30, 2018, signature date of the original action, and which the EPA considered or relied upon in its original final decisions published in June 2018.
This information is contained in the public rulemaking docket, available at https
www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA
HQOAR20170548.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

9 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 Jun 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

data within 90 days after the end of each quarterly reporting period, and under 40
CFR 58.15a2 states are required to submit annual summary reports and a data certification letter to the EPA by May 1 for ozone air quality data collected in the previous calendar year.
Thus, at the time of the 120-day letters, the most recent certification obligation was for air quality data from 2016. In the 120-day notification letters to states, the EPA indicated that for the EPA to consider air quality data for the period 20152017 in the final designation decisions for any area, a state must submit certified, quality assured 2015
2017 air quality monitoring data for the area to the EPA by February 28, 2018.
Several states, including Missouri and Illinois, chose to submit early certified air quality data for areas within their states. Accordingly, for the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois area, the EPA based its original final designations decisions on air quality data from 20152017 and is also basing the revised final designation decisions on air quality data from 2015
2017. For the three states that comprise a portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin CSA, only Illinois chose to early certify 2017 data before the May 1, 2018, deadline. The 20152017 design values for counties in the Illinois portion of the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin CSA show violations of the NAAQS in Cook County and Lake County in Illinois, and no violations in other counties in the Illinois portion of the CSA; this is not a change from the 2014
2016 data for Illinois, which also showed violations in only these two counties within the Illinois portion of the CSA. Therefore, the early certified 2017 data would not result in a change to the designations for those counties.
Thus, for the Chicago, Illinois-IndianaWisconsin area, the EPA based its original final designations decisions on air quality data from 20142016 and is also basing the revised final designation decisions on air quality data from 2014
2016, with additional consideration of 20152017 data for Illinois.
The EPAs reliance on the existing record to support the designations in this Federal Register document is reasonable in light of the circumstances.
The CAA does not specify what data the Agency must rely on in re-promulgating designations upon remand from a court.
As such, the EPAs reasonable reliance on the existing record reflects the EPAs dedication to national consistency and the specific direction of the court in Clean Wisconsin: to issue revised designations as expeditiously as
PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

31443

practicable in responding to the remand.10
Section 107d of the CAA lays out a particular timeline for designations decisions to be made, triggered from the promulgation date of a NAAQS. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the designation of every area of the country, apart from those remanded to the Agency, relied on the existing record.11 As the D.C. Circuit stated in previous cases reviewing the EPAs designations decisions, inconsistency is the hallmark of arbitrary agency action. 12 Relying on the data available to the Agency at the time of the April 2018 designations action would prevent inconsistent treatment between the remanded counties and every other area of the country.
In addition, this action expands the boundaries of existing nonattainment areas but does not create any new nonattainment areas. If it is important to treat areas across the country consistently, it is that much more important that the EPA treat different portions of the same nonattainment area consistently. For example, in this action, the EPA is expanding the boundary of the Sheboygan, Wisconsin nonattainment area by approximately 0.9 miles. It would be illogical in this type of situation for the Agency to use one set of data e.g., 20142016 design values for the previously-designated portion and a different set e.g., 2017
2019 or 20182020 design values for the new 0.9-mile wide portion of the county.
The D.C. Circuits direction to act as expeditiously as practicable also weighs in favor of using the existing record. Gathering and analyzing new data would necessarily have taken longer, because much of the data the EPA generally relies upon in its designations decision-making process is obtained outside the Agency, including from states.
VIII. What are the ozone air quality classifications and implementation dates?
In accordance with CAA section 181a1, each area designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS is classified by operation of law at the same time as the area is designated by the EPA. Under Subpart 2 of part D of 10 Clean
Wisconsin, 964 F.2d at 1176.
is discussed earlier in this section, almost every designation relied on monitored 20142016
design values. The few exceptions were for states that early-certified 20152017 data in accordance with the Designation Guidance.
12 Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 51 D.C.
Cir. 2009; see also Mississippi Commn v. EPA, 790
F.3d 138, 160 D.C. Cir. 2015.
11 As
E:FRFM14JNR1.SGM

14JNR1