Vol. 80 Thursday, 

No. 232 December 3, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; 

Proposed Rules 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9935–25– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS05 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this 

proposal is to address interstate air 

quality impacts with respect to the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 

promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, 

to address interstate transport of ozone 

pollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

EPA is proposing to update CSAPR to 

address interstate emission transport 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

This proposal also responds to the July 

28, 2015 remand by the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit of certain states’ ozone-season 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions 

budgets established by CSAPR. This 

proposal also updates the status of 

certain states’ outstanding interstate 

ozone transport obligations with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, for which 

CSAPR provided a partial remedy. 

This proposal finds that ozone season 

emissions of NOX in 23 eastern states 

affect the ability of downwind states to 

attain and maintain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. These emissions can be 

transported downwind as NOX or, after 

transformation in the atmosphere, as 

ozone. For these 23 eastern states, the 

EPA proposes to issue Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) that 

generally update the existing CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season emissions budgets 

for electricity generating units (EGUs) 

and implement these budgets via the 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowance 

trading program. The EPA would 

finalize a FIP for any state that does not 

have an approved SIP addressing its 

contribution by the date this rule is 

finalized. The EPA is proposing 

implementation starting with the 2017 

ozone season. In conjunction with other 

federal and state actions, these 

requirements would assist downwind 

states in the eastern United States in 

attaining and maintaining the 2008 

ozone standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 19, 2016. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before January 4, 2016. 

Public hearing. The EPA will be 

holding one public hearing on the 

proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Update for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

hearing will be held to accept oral 

comments on the proposal. The hearing 

will be held on December 17, 2015 in 

Washington, DC. The hearing will begin 

at 9 a.m. EST and will conclude at 8 

p.m. EST. Additional information for 

this public hearing is available in a 

separate Federal Register notice and at 

http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/

proposed-cross-state-air-pollutionupdate-rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0500, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Risley, Clean Air Markets 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (Mail Code 6204M), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

343–9177; email address: Risley.David@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Glossary of Terms and 

Abbreviations 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in the preamble. 

CAA or Act Clean Air Act 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

with Extensions 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FR Federal Register 

GWh Gigawatt hours 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

Km Kilometer 

lb/mmBtu Pounds per Million British 

Thermal Unit 

LNB Low-NOX Burners 

mmBtu Pounds per Million British Thermal 

Unit 

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

NBP NOX Budget Trading Program 

NEI National Emission Inventory 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NSPS New Source Performance Standard 

OFA Overfire Air 

PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter 

PPB Parts Per Billion 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SC–CO2 Social Cost of Carbon 

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions 

SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TSD Technical Support Document 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Major Provisions 

C. Benefits and Costs 

II. General Information 

A. To Whom Does the Proposed Action 

Apply 

III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and Overall 

Approach for the Proposed Rule 

A. The Interstate Transport Challenge 

Under the 2008 Ozone Standard 

1. Background on the Overall Nature of the 

Interstate Ozone Transport Problem 

2. Events Affecting Application of the 

Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS 

B. Proposed Approach To Address Ozone 

Transport Under the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS via FIPS 

1. The CSAPR Framework 

2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of 

Transport Obligation 

3. Why We Focus on Eastern States 

4. Short-Term NOX Emissions 

C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75707 

1Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of regional 

NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8-hour ozone 

concentrations in the Washington, DC; 

Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs. 

‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions 

to ozone and fine particulate matter-related 

mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’. 

2Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate to 

Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern USA.’’ 

3The term ‘‘state’’ has the same meaning as 

provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically 

includes the District of Columbia. 

4CSAPR did not evaluate the 2008 ozone 

standard because the 2008 ozone NAAQS was 

under reconsideration during the analytic work for 

the rule. 

D. Addressing the Status of Outstanding 

Transport Obligations for the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS 

IV. Legal Authority 

A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed Rule 

1. Statutory Authority 

2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered by 

the Proposed Rule 

V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality and 

Upwind-State Contributions 

A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling 

Platform 

B. Emission Inventories 

1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data 

Sets 

2. Development of Emission Inventories for 

EGUs 

3. Development of Emission Inventories for 

Non-EGU Point Sources 

4. Development of Emission Inventories for 

Onroad Mobile Sources 

5. Development of Emission Inventories for 

Commercial Marine Category 3 (Vessel) 

6. Development of Emission Inventories for 

Other Nonroad Mobile Sources 

7. Development of Emission Inventories for 

Nonpoint Sources 

C. Air Quality Modeling to Identify 

Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors 

D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind 

States 

1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify 

Upwind State Contributions 

2. Application of Screening Threshold 

VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU NOX

Reduction Potential to Reduce Interstate 

Ozone Transport for the 2008 NAAQS 

A. Introduction 

B. NOX Mitigation Strategies 

1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies 

2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies 

C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for 

Assessment 

D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX Reductions, 

and Air Quality 

E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets 

VII. Implementation Using the Existing 

CSAPR Ozone-Season Allowance 

Trading Program and Relationship to 

Other Rules 

A. Background 

B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements of 

the CSAPR Trading Programs 

1. Applicability 

2. State Budgets 

3. Allocations of Emission Allowances 

4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, 

and Penalties 

5. Implementation Approaches for 

Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX

Ozone-Season Program to Address 

Transport for a Newer NAAQS 

6. Compliance Deadlines 

7. Monitoring and Reporting and the 

Allowance Management System 

8. Recordation of Allowances 

C. Submitting a SIP 

1. 2018 SIP Option 

2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option 

3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the 

CSAPR Trading Program 

4. Submitting a SIP to Participate in 

CSAPR for States Not Included in This 

Proposal 

D. Title V Permitting 

E. Relationship to Other Emission Trading 

and Ozone Transport Programs 

1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR 

Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain 

Program, NOX SIP Call, 176A Petition, 

and Other State Implementation Plans 

2. Other Federal Rulemakings 

VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the 

Proposed Rule 

IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to the 

Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs and 

CSAPR Trading Program 

X. 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 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations 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. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) 

and (d) 

I. Executive Summary 

The EPA promulgated the original 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

on July 6, 2011, to address interstate 

ozone transport under the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to 

update CSAPR to address interstate 

emission transport with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone 

NAAQS is an 8-hour standard that was 

set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 73 

FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

reduce interstate emission transport that 

significantly contributes to 

nonattainment, or interferes with 

maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in the eastern U.S. To achieve this goal, 

this proposal would further limit ozone 

season (May 1 through September 30) 

NOX emissions from electric generating 

units (EGUs) in 23 eastern states. 

Ozone causes a variety of negative 

effects on human health, vegetation, and 

ecosystems. In humans, acute and 

chronic exposure to ozone is associated 

with premature mortality and a number 

of morbidity effects, such as asthma 

exacerbation. Ozone exposure can also 

negatively impact ecosystems. 

Studies have established that ozone 

occurs on a regional scale (i.e., 

thousands of kilometers) over much of 

the eastern U.S., with elevated 

concentrations occurring in rural as well 

as metropolitan areas. To reduce this 

regional-scale ozone transport, 

assessments of ozone control 

approaches have concluded that NOX

control strategies are most effective. 

Further, studies have found that EGU 

NOX emission reductions can be 

effective in reducing individual 8-hour 

peak ozone concentrations and in 

reducing 8-hour peak ozone 

concentrations averaged across the 

ozone season.1 Specifically, studies 

indicate that EGUs’ emissions, which 

are generally released higher in the air 

column through tall stacks and are 

significant in quantity, may 

disproportionately contribute to longrange transport of ozone pollution on a 

per-ton basis.2

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), sometimes 

called the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ 

requires states 3 to prohibit emissions 

that will contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

respect to any primary or secondary 

NAAQS. 

The EPA originally finalized CSAPR 

on July 6, 2011. See 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses the 

1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS.4 (See section IV for a 

discussion of CSAPR litigation and 

implementation.) 

CSAPR provides a 4-step process to 

address the requirements of the good 

neighbor provision for ozone or PM2.5

standards: (1) Identifying downwind 

receptors that are expected to have 

problems attaining or maintaining clean 

air standards (i.e., NAAQS); (2) 

determining which upwind states 

contribute to these identified problems 

in amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to 

the downwind air quality problems; (3) 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Tennessee, and Texas. (See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 

FR at 48220, and the CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 

FR at 80760, December 27, 2011). 

6The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets 

for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. The EPA proposes to remove Florida 

and South Carolina from the CSAPR ozone-season 

NOX trading program. 

7The states included in this finding of failure to 

submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, 

Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, 

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

8 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding 

that EPA must coordinate interstate transport 

compliance deadlines with downwind attainment 

deadlines). 

9 80 FR 12264, 12268; 40 CFR 51.1103. 

10 777 F.3d 456, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

for states linked to downwind air 

quality problems, identifying upwind 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment or interfere 

with downwind maintenance of a 

standard by quantifying available 

upwind emission reductions and 

apportioning upwind responsibility 

among linked states; and (4) for states 

that are found to have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, 

reducing the identified upwind 

emissions via regional emissions 

allowance trading programs. Each time 

the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS are revised, 

this process can be applied for the new 

NAAQS. In this action, the EPA 

proposes to apply this 4-step process to 

update CSAPR with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Application of this process with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

provides the analytic basis for proposing 

to further limit ozone season EGU NOX

emissions in 23 eastern states. However, 

the EPA seeks comment on this 

proposal from all states and 

stakeholders. 

The requirements of this proposal are 

in addition to existing, on-the-books 

EPA and state environmental 

regulations, including the Clean Power 

Plan (CPP), which is included in the 

base case for this proposal. On August 

3, 2015, President Obama and EPA 

announced the Clean Power Plan—a 

historic and important action on 

emissions that contribute to climate 

change. The CPP reduces carbon 

pollution from the power sector. Due to 

the compliance timeframes of the CPP, 

the EPA does not anticipate significant 

interactions with the CPP and the nearterm ozone season EGU NOX emission 

reduction requirements under this 

proposal. However, states and utilities 

will be able to make their compliance 

plans with both programs in mind. 

Further discussion of the CPP is 

provided later in this proposal. 

In addition to reducing interstate 

ozone transport with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, this proposal also 

addresses the status of outstanding 

interstate ozone transport obligations 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Under CSAPR, the EPA promulgated 

FIPs for 25 states to address ozone 

transport under the 1997 NAAQS. For 

11 of these states,5 in the 2011 final rule, 

CSAPR quantified ozone season NOX

emission reductions that were not 

necessarily sufficient to eliminate all 

significant contribution to downwind 

nonattainment or interference with 

downwind maintenance of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS downwind. Relying on 

base case modeling completed for this 

proposed rulemaking, this action 

proposes to find that the reductions 

required by those 11 FIPs were in fact 

sufficient to eliminate such significant 

contributions to downwind air quality 

problems for that standard. 

This action also responds to the July 

28, 2015 opinion of the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit) remanding without 

vacatur 11 states’ CSAPR phase 2 NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

795 F.3d 118, 129–30, 138 (EME Homer 

City II). This action proposes to respond 

to that remand by replacing the budgets 

invalidated by the D.C. Circuit for nine 

states and by removing two states from 

the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program.6

On October 1, 2015, the EPA 

strengthened the ground-level ozone 

NAAQS, based on extensive scientific 

evidence about ozone’s effects on public 

health and welfare. This proposal to 

reduce interstate emission transport 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

is a separate and distinct regulatory 

action and is not meant to address the 

CAA’s good neighbor provision with 

respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS final 

rule. 

The Clean Air Act gives states the 

responsibility to address interstate 

pollution transport through good 

neighbor State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs). The EPA supports state efforts to 

submit good neighbor SIPs for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and has shared 

information with states to facilitate such 

SIP submittals. However, in the event 

that good neighbor SIPs are not 

submitted or cannot be approved, this 

rulemaking proposes Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs), as 

required under section 110(c)(1) of the 

CAA, to establish and implement EGU 

NOX reductions identified in this rule. 

On July 13, 2015, the EPA published 

a rule finding that 24 states 7 failed to 

make complete submissions that 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate 

transport of pollution as to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 

13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). 

The finding action triggered a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to 

address the good neighbor provision for 

these states by August 12, 2017. 

The EPA would finalize a FIP for a 

state that we find has failed to submit 

a complete good neighbor SIP or for 

which we issue a final rule 

disapproving its good neighbor SIP. 

The EPA proposes to align 

implementation of this proposed rule 

with relevant attainment dates for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, as required by the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision North Carolina v. 

EPA.8 The EPA’s final 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule 9

revised the attainment deadline for 

ozone nonattainment areas currently 

designated as moderate from December 

2018 to July 2018 in accordance with 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. 

EPA.10 Because July 2018 falls during 

the 2018 ozone season, the 2017 ozone 

season will be the last full season from 

which data can be used to determine 

attainment of the NAAQS by the July 

2018 attainment date. We believe that 

North Carolina compels the EPA to 

identify upwind reductions and 

implementation programs to achieve 

these reductions, to the extent possible, 

for the 2017 ozone season. 

In order to apply the first and second 

steps of the CSAPR 4-step process to 

interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the EPA used air quality 

modeling to project ozone 

concentrations at air quality monitoring 

sites to 2017. The EPA evaluated these 

modeling projections for the air quality 

monitoring sites and considered current 

ozone monitoring data at these sites to 

identify receptors that are anticipated to 

have problems attaining or maintaining 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA then 

used air quality modeling to evaluate 

contributions from upwind states to 

these downwind receptors. 

CSAPR and previous federal transport 

rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)— 

discussed in detail below—addressed 

collective contributions of ozone 

pollution from states in the eastern U.S. 

These rules did not address 

contributions in the 11 western 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75709 

11For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. 

(or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous 

states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

12For example, EPA-State meetings held in 

Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and 

Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013. 

13The proposed requirements for one state, North 

Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s 

significant contribution to downwind air quality 

problems. 

14One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR 

ozone season requirement under this proposal. 

Kansas currently participates in the CSAPR NOX

and SO2 annual programs. The remaining 22 states 

were included in the original CSAPR ozone-season 

program as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

contiguous United States.11 There may 

be additional criteria to evaluate 

regarding collective contribution of 

transported air pollution in the West, 

such as those raised in EPA-state 

meetings to discuss approaches for 

determining how emissions in upwind 

states impact air quality in downwind 

states.12 Given that the near-term 2017 

implementation timeframe constrains 

the opportunity to conduct evaluations 

of additional criteria, the EPA proposes 

to focus this rulemaking on eastern 

states. This focus would not relieve 

western states of obligations to address 

interstate transport under the Act. The 

EPA and western states, working 

together, would continue to evaluate 

interstate transport on a case-by-case 

basis. While the EPA proposes to focus 

this rulemaking on eastern states, we 

seek comment on whether to include 

western states in this rule. 

To apply the third step of the 4-step 

process, the EPA assessed ozone season 

NOX reductions that are achievable for 

the 2017 ozone season. This assessment 

reveals that there is significant EGU 

NOX reduction potential that can be 

achieved for 2017 at reasonable cost, 

which would make meaningful and 

timely improvements in ozone air 

quality. The EPA applied a multi-factor 

test to evaluate EGU NOX reduction 

potential for 2017 and proposes to 

quantify EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets reflecting emission 

reductions from cost-effective pollution 

control measures achievable for the 

2017 ozone season (estimated to obtain 

NOX reductions at a uniform cost of 

approximately $1,300 per ton). 

The EPA is not proposing to quantify 

non-EGU emission reductions to reduce 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS at this time because we 

are uncertain that significant NOX

mitigation is achievable from non-EGUs 

for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA will 

continue to evaluate whether non-EGU 

emission reductions can be achieved on 

a longer time-frame at a future date. 

However, as explained later in this 

document, this proposal seeks comment 

on a preliminary evaluation of 

stationary non-EGU NOX mitigation 

potential and on allowing a state to 

include legacy NOX SIP Call non-EGUs 

in the CSAPR trading program by 

adopting a SIP revision that the EPA 

would approve as modifying the CSAPR 

trading program provisions with regard 

to that state. 

To evaluate full elimination of a 

state’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone 

season NOX reductions should both be 

evaluated. To the extent air quality 

impacts persist after implementation of 

the NOX reductions identified in this 

rulemaking, a final judgment on 

whether the proposed EGU NOX

reductions represent a full or partial 

elimination of a state’s good neighbor 

obligation for the 2008 NAAQS is 

therefore subject to an evaluation of the 

contribution to interstate transport from 

additional non-EGU emission sectors. 

However, the EPA believes that it is 

beneficial to implement, without further 

delay, EGU NOX reductions since they 

are achievable in the near term. 

Generally, notwithstanding that 

additional reductions may be required 

to fully address the states’ interstate 

transport obligations, the proposed NOX

emission reductions are needed for 

these states to eliminate their significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS and needed for 

downwind states with ozone 

nonattainment areas that are required to 

attain the standard by 2018.13

At the same time, the EPA also notes 

that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

only requires upwind states to prohibit 

emissions that will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states. It does not shift to upwind 

states the full responsibility for ensuring 

that all areas in other states attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. Downwind states 

also have control responsibilities 

because, among other things, the Act 

requires each state to adopt enforceable 

plans to attain and maintain air quality 

standards. The requirements established 

for upwind states through this proposed 

rule will supplement downwind states’ 

local emission control strategies that, in 

conjunction with the certainty on 

maximum allowable upwind state EGU 

emissions that this proposed rule would 

provide, promote attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

To meet the fourth step of the 4-step 

process (i.e., implementation) the 

proposed FIPs contain enforceable 

measures necessary to achieve the 

emission reductions in each state. The 

proposed FIPs would require power 

plants in affected states (i.e., states that 

significantly contribute to ozone 

transport in the east) to participate in 

the CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

allowance trading program (as modified 

by the proposed changes described 

elsewhere in this notice). CSAPR’s 

trading programs and EPA’s prior 

emissions trading programs provide a 

proven implementation framework for 

achieving emission reductions. In 

addition to providing environmental 

certainty (i.e., a cap on emissions), these 

programs also provide regulated sources 

with flexibility in choosing compliance 

strategies. By using the existing CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season allowance trading 

program, the EPA is proposing to use an 

implementation framework that was 

shaped by notice and comment in 

previous rulemakings and reflects the 

evolution of these programs in response 

to court decisions. Further, this program 

is familiar to the EGUs that will be 

regulated under this rule, which means 

that monitoring, reporting, and 

compliance will be done as it already is 

under CSAPR’s current ozone-season 

and annual programs.14

These FIP requirements, if finalized, 

would begin with the 2017 ozone season 

and would continue for subsequent 

ozone seasons to ensure that upwind 

states included in this proposed rule 

meet their Clean Air Act obligation to 

address interstate emissions transport 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for 2017 and future years. To the extent 

that emissions in an included state 

would otherwise exceed the 

promulgated emission level, these good 

neighbor EGU emissions limits will 

ensure that future emissions are 

consistent with states’ ongoing good 

neighbor obligations. To the extent that 

emissions in an included state would be 

reduced for other reasons, for example 

planned lower-NOX emitting generation 

coming online, then those actions will 

help the state comply with its good 

neighbor requirements. 

Generally, for states that would be 

affected by one of the FIPs proposed in 

this action and that are already included 

in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program to address interstate ozone 

transport for the 1997 NAAQS, this 

action proposes to revise the existing 

part 97 regulations that define that 

program to incorporate lower EGU NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets for 

each of the affected states in order to 

reduce ozone transport for the 2008 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR 

ozone season requirement under this proposal. The 

remaining 22 states were included in the original 

CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

16The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets 

for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. 

ozone NAAQS.15 If finalized, 

compliance with these lower emissions 

budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

would also satisfy compliance with the 

existing higher emissions budgets for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the 

EPA proposes to replace the existing 

CSAPR emissions budgets (i.e. for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS) for the affected 

states with the lower emissions budgets 

proposed to reduce ozone transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Compliance 

with the final lower emissions budgets 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would 

supersede compliance with the CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season budgets for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. This action would 

therefore respond to the remand of EME 

Homer City II with respect to the NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets for nine 

states 16 by replacing the budgets 

declared invalid by the court with 

revised budgets designed to address the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The proposed FIPs, if finalized, would 

not limit states’ flexibility in meeting 

their CAA requirements, as any state 

included in this proposed rule can 

submit a good neighbor SIP at any time 

that, if approved by the EPA, could 

replace the FIP for that state. 

Additionally, CSAPR already provides 

states with the option to submit 

abbreviated SIPs to customize the 

methodology for allocating NOX ozoneseason allowances while participating 

in the ozone-season trading program 

and we propose to continue that 

approach in this rule. 

The EPA therefore proposes revisions 

to the Code of Federal Regulations, 

specifically 40 CFR part 97, subpart 

BBBBB (federal CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program); 40 CFR 

52.38(b) (rules on replacing or 

modifying the federal CSAPR NOX

ozone-season trading program with a 

SIP); 40 CFR 52.540, 52.882, and 

52.2140 (adding or limiting 

requirements for EGUs in certain 

individual states to participate in the 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program); and 40 CFR 78.1 (modifying 

the list of decisions subject to 

administrative appeal procedures under 

part 78) to address interstate transport 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, 

various minor corrections are proposed 

to these CFR and other sections of parts 

52, 78, and 97 relating to the CSAPR 

ozone-season and annual trading 

programs. 

The 23 eastern states for which the 

EPA proposes to promulgate FIPs to 

reduce interstate ozone transport as to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS are listed in 

Table I–1. 

TABLE I–A–1—PROPOSED LIST OF

COVERED STATES FOR THE 2008 8- 

HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

State name 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Michigan 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Carolina 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

For eastern states for which the EPA 

is not proposing FIPs in this action, the 

EPA notes that updates to the modeling 

for the final rule, made based on 

comments received on the proposal, 

could change the analysis as to which 

states significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance. In this regard, the final 

modeling could result in additional 

states being included in the final rule. 

Therefore, the EPA provides all data and 

methods necessary for all eastern states 

to comment on all aspects of this 

proposal in the Ozone Transport Policy 

Analysis TSD. This information 

includes EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets for all eastern states, 

in the event that final rule modeling 

demonstrates that additional states 

significantly contribute to downwind air 

quality problems. 

The EPA notes that the annual PM2.5

NAAQS was updated after CSAPR was 

promulgated (78 FR 306, January 15, 

2013). However, this rulemaking does 

not address the 2012 PM2.5 standard. 

The EPA acknowledges that, in EME 

Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit also 

remanded without vacatur the CSAPR 

phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets as to 

four states. 795 F.3d at 129, 138. This 

proposal does not address the remand of 

these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 annual 

emissions budgets. The EPA intends to 

address the remand of the phase 2 SO2

annual emissions budgets separately. 

The existing CSAPR emissions budgets 

and implementation programs (CSAPR 

SO2 annual and NOX annual 

requirements), which address interstate 

transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, continue to apply at this time. 

B. Major Provisions 

The major provision of this action are 

described in the remainder of this 

preamble and organized as follows: 

Section III describes the human health 

and environmental context, the EPA’s 

overall approach for addressing 

interstate transport, and the EPA’s 

response to the remand of certain 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions 

budgets; section IV describes the EPA’s 

legal authority for this action; section V 

describes the air quality modeling 

platform and emission inventories that 

the EPA used to identify downwind 

receptors of concern and upwind state 

ozone contributions to those receptors; 

section VI describes the EPA’s proposed 

approach to quantify upwind state 

obligations in the form of EGU NOX

emissions budgets; section VII details 

the implementation requirements 

including key elements of the CSAPR 

allowance trading program and 

deadlines for compliance; section VIII 

describes the expected costs, benefits, 

and other impacts of this proposed rule; 

section IX discusses proposed changes 

to the existing regulatory text for the 

CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR trading 

programs; and section X discusses the 

statutes and executive orders affecting 

this rulemaking. The EPA invites 

comment on this proposed rulemaking. 

C. Benefits and Costs 

The proposed rule would achieve 

near-term emission reductions from the 

power sector, lowering ozone season 

NOX in 2017 by 85,000 tons, compared 

to baseline 2017 projections without the 

rule. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ we have estimated 

the costs and benefits of the proposed 

rule. Estimates here are subject to 

uncertainties discussed further in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the 

docket. The estimated net benefits of the 

proposed rule at a 3 percent discount 

rate are $700 million to $1.2 billion 

(2011$). The non-monetized benefits 

include reduced ecosystem effects and 

reduced visibility impairment. 

Discussion of the costs and benefits of 

the proposal is provided in preamble 

section VIII, below, and in the RIA, 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75711 

which is found in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. The EPA’s 

estimate of the proposed rule’s costs and 

quantified benefits is summarized in 

Table I.C–1, below. 

TABLE I.C–1—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS, MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND MONETIZED NET BENEFITS OF THE

PROPOSED RULE FOR 2017 (2011$) 

Description 

Impacts at 3 percent discount rate 

($ millions) 

Annualized Compliance Costs a ............................................................................................................................................ $93. 

Monetized benefits b ................................................................................................................................................................... 700 to 1,200. 

Net benefits (benefits-costs) ....................................................................................................................................................... 620 to 1,200. 

a Total annualized social costs are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The social costs presented here reflect the EGU ozone season 

costs of complying with the proposed FIPs. b Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits and co-benefits include many but not all 

health effects associated with pollution exposure. Benefits are shown as a range reflecting studies from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. 

(2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008). 

II. General Information 

A. To whom does this action apply? 

This proposed rule affects EGUs, and 

regulates the following groups: 

Industry group NAICS * 

Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation ........................................................................................................................................... 221112 

* North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that the EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

entity is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

97.504. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and 

Overall Approach for the Proposed 

Rule 

A. The Interstate Transport Challenge 

Under the 2008 Ozone Standard 

1. Background on the Overall Nature of 

the Interstate Ozone Transport Problem 

Interstate transport of NOX emissions 

poses significant challenges with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 

eastern U.S. and thus presents a threat 

to public health and welfare. 

a. Nature of Ozone and the Ozone 

NAAQS 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly into the air, but is created by 

chemical reactions between NOX and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 

the presence of sunlight. Emissions from 

electric utilities and industrial facilities, 

motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and 

chemical solvents are some of the major 

sources of NOX and VOC. 

Because ground-level ozone formation 

increases with temperature and 

sunlight, ozone levels are generally 

higher during the summer. Increased 

temperature also increases emissions of 

volatile man-made and biogenic 

organics and can indirectly increase 

NOX emissions as well (e.g., increased 

electricity generation for air 

conditioning). 

The 2008 primary and secondary 

ozone standards are both 75 parts per 

billion (ppb) as an 8-hour level. 

Specifically, the standards require that 

the 3-year average of the fourth highest 

24-hour maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration may not exceed 75 ppb. 

b. Ozone Transport 

Studies have established that ozone 

formation, atmospheric residence, and 

transport occurs on a regional scale (i.e., 

thousands of kilometers) over much of 

the eastern U.S., with elevated 

concentrations occurring in rural as well 

as metropolitan areas. While substantial 

progress has been made in reducing 

ozone in many urban areas, regionalscale ozone transport is still an 

important component of peak ozone 

concentrations during the summer 

ozone season. 

The EPA has previously concluded in 

the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR 

that, for reducing regional-scale ozone 

transport, a NOX control strategy would 

be most effective. NOX emissions can be 

transported downwind as NOX or, after 

transformation in the atmosphere, as 

ozone. As a result of ozone transport, in 

any given location, ozone pollution 

levels are impacted by a combination of 

local emissions and emissions from 

upwind sources. The transport of ozone 

pollution across state borders 

compounds the difficulty for downwind 

states in meeting health-based air 

quality standards (i.e., NAAQS). 

Recent assessments of ozone, for 

example those conducted for the 

October 2015 Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of the Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA–452/R– 

15–007) continue to show the 

importance of NOX emissions on ozone 

transport. This analysis is in the docket 

for this proposal and can be also found 

at the EPA’s Web site at: http://

www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/

20151001ria.pdf. 

There are five general categories of 

NOX emission sources: EGUs, non-EGU 

point, onroad mobile, non-road mobile, 

and area. Studies have found that EGU 

NOX emission reductions can be 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

17Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate 

to Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern 

USA’’. 

18Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of 

regional NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8- 

hour ozone concentrations in the Washington, DC; 

Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs. 

‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions 

to ozone and fine particulate matter-related 

mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’. 

19The EPA recognizes that both in-state and 

upwind wildfires may contribute to monitored 

ozone concentrations. The EPA encourages all 

states to consider how the appropriate use of 

prescribed fire may benefit of public safety and 

health by resulting in fewer ozone exceedances for 

both the affected state and their neighboring states. 20The CAA and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations, specifically the Exceptional Events 

Rule at 40 CFR 50.14, allow for the exclusion of air 

quality monitoring data from regulatory 

determinations when events, including wildland 

fires, contribute to NAAQS exceedances or 

violations if they meet certain requirements, 

including the criterion that the event be not 

reasonably controllable or preventable. Wildland 

fires can be of two types: Wildfire (unplanned) and 

prescribed fire (planned). Under the Exceptional 

Events Rule, wildfires are considered, by their 

nature, to be not reasonably controllable or 

preventable. Because prescribed fires on wildland 

are intentionally ignited for resource management 

purposes, to meet the not reasonably controllable or 

preventable criterion, they must be conducted 

under a certified Smoke Management Program or 

employ basic smoke management practices. Both 

types of wildland fire must also satisfy the other 

rule criteria. The EPA will soon propose revisions 

to the Exceptional Events Rule and release a draft 

guidance document, which applies the proposed 

rule revisions to wildfire events that could 

influence ozone concentrations. These actions, 

which the EPA intends to finalize in the summer 

of 2016, further clarify the treatment of wildland 

fires under the Exceptional Events Rule. 

21Fact Sheet. The EPA to reconsider Ozone 

Pollution Standards. http://www.epa.gov/

groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_FACT

%20SHEET_091609.pdf. 

22See Policy Assessment for the Review of the 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

August 2014, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf, at 1–9. 

effective in reducing individual 8-hour 

peak ozone concentrations and in 

reducing 8-hour peak ozone 

concentrations averaged across the 

ozone season. For example, a study that 

evaluates the effectiveness on ozone 

concentrations of EGU NOX reductions 

achieved under the NOX Budget Trading 

Program shows that regulating NOX

emissions has been highly effective in 

reducing both ozone and dry-NO3

concentrations during the ozone season. 

Further, this study indicates that EGU 

emissions, which are generally released 

higher in the air column through tall 

stacks and are significant in quantity, 

may disproportionately contribute to 

long-range transport of ozone pollution 

on a per-ton basis.17 Another study 

shows that EGU NOX emissions can 

contribute between 5 ppb and 25 ppb to 

average 8-hour peak ozone 

concentrations in mid-Atlantic 

metropolitan statistical areas.18

Previous regional ozone transport 

efforts, including the NOX SIP Call, 

CAIR, and CSAPR, required ozone 

season NOX reductions from EGUs to 

address interstate transport of ozone. 

The EPA has taken comment on 

regulating EGU NOX emissions to 

address interstate ozone transport in the 

notice-and-comment process for these 

rulemakings. The EPA received no 

significant adverse comments in any of 

these proposals regarding the rules’ 

focus on ozone season EGU NOX

reductions to address interstate ozone 

transport. 

As described later in this notice, the 

EPA’s analysis finds that the power 

sector continues to be capable of making 

NOX reductions at reasonable cost that 

reduce interstate transport with respect 

to ground-level ozone. EGU NOX

emission reductions can be made in the 

near-term under this proposal by fully 

operating existing EGU NOX postcombustion controls (i.e., Selective 

Catalytic Reduction and Selective NonCatalytic Reduction)—including 

optimizing NOX removal by existing, 

operational controls and turning on and 

optimizing existing idled controls; 

installation of (or upgrading to) state-ofthe-art NOX combustion controls; and 

shifting generation to units with lower 

NOX emission rates. Further, additional 

assessment reveals that these available 

EGU NOX reductions would make 

meaningful and timely improvements in 

ozone air quality. 

The Clean Air Act’s good neighbor 

provision requires states and the EPA to 

address interstate transport of air 

pollution that affects downwind states’ 

ability to attain and maintain NAAQS. 

Other provisions of the CAA, namely 

sections 179B and 319(b), are available 

to deal with NAAQS exceedances not 

attributable to the interstate transport of 

pollution covered by the good neighbor 

provisions but caused by emission 

sources outside the control of a 

downwind state. These provisions 

address international transport and 

exceptional events, respectively.19 20

c. Health and Environmental Effects 

Exposure to ambient ozone causes a 

variety of negative effects on human 

health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In 

humans, acute and chronic exposure to 

ozone is associated with premature 

mortality and a number of morbidity 

effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In 

ecosystems, ozone exposure causes 

visible foliar injury, decreases plant 

growth, and affects ecosystem 

community composition. See the EPA’s 

November 2014 Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ground-Level Ozone 

(EPA–452/P–14–006), in the docket for 

this proposal and available on the EPA’s 

Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf, for 

more information on the human health 

and welfare and ecosystem effects 

associated with ambient ozone 

exposure. 

2. Events Affecting Application of the 

Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS 

The 2008 revisions to the ozone 

NAAQS were promulgated on March 12, 

2008. See National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). The revision of 

the NAAQS, in turn, triggered a 3-year 

deadline of March 12, 2011, for states to 

submit SIP revisions addressing 

infrastructure requirements under CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), 

including the good neighbor provision. 

During this 3-year SIP development 

period, on September 16, 2009, the EPA 

announced 21 that it would reconsider 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To reduce the 

workload for states during the interim 

period of reconsideration, the EPA also 

announced its intention to propose 

staying implementation of the 2008 

standards for a number of the 

requirements. On January 6, 2010, the 

EPA proposed to revise the 2008 

NAAQS for ozone from 75 ppb to a level 

within the range of 60 to 70 ppb. See 75 

FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). The EPA 

indicated its intent to issue final 

standards based upon the 

reconsideration by summer 2011. 

On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized 

CSAPR, in response to the DC Circuit’s 

remand of the EPA’s prior federal 

transport rule, CAIR. See 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses 

ozone transport under the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, but does not address the 2008 

ozone standard, because the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS was under reconsideration 

during the analytic work for the rule. 

On September 2, 2011, consistent 

with the direction of the President, the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

the Office of Management and Budget 

returned the draft final 2008 ozone rule 

EPA had developed upon 

reconsideration to the Agency for 

further consideration.22 In view of this 

direction and the timing of the agency’s 

ongoing periodic review of the ozone 

NAAQS required under CAA section 

109 (as announced on September 29, 

2008), the EPA decided to coordinate 

further proceedings on its voluntary 

reconsideration rulemaking of the 2008 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75713 

23 Id. 

24EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

25See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air 

and Radiation former Assistant Administrator Gina 

McCarthy to the EPA Regions, ‘‘Next Steps for 

Pending Redesignation Requests and State 

Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the 

Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 CrossState Air Pollution Rule,’’ November 19, 2012; 78 

FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on 

Florida infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS); 78 FR 14450 (March 6, 2013) 

(final action on Tennessee infrastructure SIP 

submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); Final 

Rule, Findings of Failure To Submit a Complete 

State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a) 

Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard, 78 FR 2884 (January 15, 2013). 

26EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 

S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other 

parties’ petitions for certiorari). 

27EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014). 28 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014). 29 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 

51.1103. 

30 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

31See CSAPR, Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). 

32Since CSAPR was designed to replace CAIR, 

CAIR emissions reductions were not considered 

‘‘on-the-books.’’ 

ozone standard with that of its ongoing 

periodic review of the ozone NAAQS.23

Implementation for the original 2008 

ozone standard was renewed. However, 

during this time period, a number of 

legal developments pertaining to the 

EPA’s promulgation of CSAPR created 

uncertainty surrounding the EPA’s 

statutory interpretation and 

implementation of the good neighbor 

provision. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing 

several legal challenges to CSAPR and 

holding, among other things, that states 

had no obligation to submit good 

neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first 

quantified each state’s good neighbor 

obligation.24 According to that decision, 

the submission deadline for good 

neighbor SIPs under the CAA would not 

necessarily be tied to the promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS. While the 

EPA disagreed with this interpretation 

of the statute and sought review of the 

decision in the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. 

Supreme Court, the EPA complied with 

the D.C. Circuit’s ruling during the 

pendency of its appeal. In particular, the 

EPA indicated that, consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it would not at 

that time issue findings that states had 

failed to submit SIPs addressing the 

good neighbor provision.25

On January 23, 2013, the Supreme 

Court granted the EPA’s petition for 

certiorari.26 During 2013 and early 2014, 

as the EPA awaited a decision from the 

Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts 

and technical analyses aimed at 

identifying and quantifying state good 

neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As part of this effort, the EPA 

solicited stakeholder input and also 

provided states with, and requested 

input on, emissions inventories for 2011 

(78 FR 70935, November 27, 2013) and 

inventory projections for 2018 (79 FR 

2437, January 14, 2014). 

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

reversed the D.C. Circuit’s EME Homer 

City opinion on CSAPR and held, 

among other things, that under the plain 

language of the CAA, states must submit 

SIPs addressing the good neighbor 

provision within 3 years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA 

first provides guidance, technical data, 

or rulemaking to quantify the state’s 

obligation.27 Thus, the Supreme Court 

affirmed that states have an obligation 

in the first instance to address the good 

neighbor provision after promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding 

that also applies to states’ obligation to 

address transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The Supreme Court holding affirmed 

that states were required to submit SIPs 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by March 12, 2011. To the extent that 

states have failed to submit SIPs to meet 

this statutory obligation, then the EPA 

has not only the authority, but the 

obligation, to promulgate FIPs to 

address the CAA requirement. 

Following the remand of the case to 

the D.C. Circuit, the EPA requested that 

the court lift the CSAPR stay and toll 

the CSAPR compliance deadlines by 

three years. On October 23, 2014, the 

D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request. 

The EPA issued an interim final rule to 

revise the regulatory deadlines in 

CSAPR to reflect the three-year delay in 

implementation. Accordingly, CSAPR 

phase 1 implementation began in 2015 

and phase 2 will begin in 2017.28

On March 6, 2015, the EPA’s final 

2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements 

Rule 29 revised the attainment deadline 

for ozone nonattainment areas currently 

designated as moderate to July 2018. In 

order to demonstrate attainment by the 

deadline, the demonstration would have 

to be based on design values calculated 

using 2015 through 2017 ozone season 

data, since the July 2018 deadline does 

not afford a full ozone season of 

measured data. The EPA established 

this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP 

Requirements Rule after previously 

establishing a deadline of December 31, 

2018, that was vacated by the D.C. 

Circuit Court in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA.30

On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its opinion regarding CSAPR on 

remand from the Supreme Court, EME 

Homer City II, 795 F.3d 118. The court 

largely upheld CSAPR, but remanded to 

EPA without vacatur certain states’ 

emissions budgets for reconsideration. 

This proposal responds to the remand of 

certain CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets to the EPA for 

reconsideration; see section C below. 

Regarding the remand of CSAPR phase 

2 SO2 annual emissions budgets as to 

four states, this proposal does not 

address that particular aspect of the D.C. 

Circuit opinion. The EPA intends to 

address the remand of the phase 2 SO2

annual emissions budgets separately. 

B. Proposed Approach To Address 

Ozone Transport Under the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS via FIPs 

1. The CSAPR Framework 

CSAPR establishes a 4-step process to 

address the requirements of the good 

neighbor provision.31 The EPA proposes 

to follow the same steps for this 

rulemaking with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. These steps are: (1) 

Identifying downwind receptors that are 

expected to have problems attaining or 

maintaining clean air standards (i.e., 

NAAQS); (2) determining which 

upwind states contribute to these 

identified problems in amounts 

sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to the 

downwind air quality problems; (3) for 

states linked to downwind air quality 

problems, identifying upwind emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of a standard by 

quantifying available upwind emission 

reductions and apportioning upwind 

responsibility among linked states; and 

(4) for states that are found to have 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, 

reducing the identified upwind 

emissions via regional emissions 

allowance trading programs. 

Step 1—In the original CSAPR, 

downwind air quality problems were 

assessed using modeled future air 

quality concentrations for a year aligned 

with attainment deadlines for the 

NAAQS considered in that rulemaking. 

The assessment of future air quality 

conditions generally accounts for onthe-books emission reductions 32 and 

the most up-to-date forecast of future 

emissions in the absence of the 

transport policy being evaluated (i.e., 

base case conditions). The locations of 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

33For ozone the impacts would include those 

from volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX,

and from all sectors. 

34EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584, 1606–07 (2014). 

35The proposed requirements for one state, North 

Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s 

significant contribution to downwind air quality 

problems. 

downwind air quality problems are 

identified as those with receptors that 

are projected to be unable to attain (i.e., 

nonattainment receptor) or maintain 

(i.e., maintenance receptor) the 

standard. This proposal follows this 

same general approach. However, the 

EPA also proposes to consider current 

monitored air quality data to further 

inform the projected identification of 

downwind air quality problems for this 

proposal. Further details and 

application of step one for this proposal 

are described in section V of this notice. 

Step 2—The original CSAPR used a 

screening threshold of one percent of 

the NAAQS to identify upwind states 

that were ‘‘linked’’ to downwind air 

pollution problems. States were 

identified as needing further evaluation 

for actions to address transport if their 

air quality impact 33 was greater than or 

equal to the threshold for at least one 

downwind problem receptor (i.e., 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

identified in step 1). We evaluated a 

given state’s contribution based on the 

average relative downwind impact 

calculated over multiple days. States 

whose air quality impacts to all 

downwind problem receptors were 

below this threshold did not require 

further evaluation for actions to address 

transport—that is, these states were 

determined to make insignificant 

contributions to downwind air quality 

problems and therefore have no 

emission reduction obligations under 

the good neighbor provision. The EPA 

used this threshold because much of the 

ozone nonattainment problem in the 

eastern half of the United States results 

from relatively small contributions from 

a number of upwind states. Use of the 

one percent threshold for CSAPR is 

discussed in the preambles to the 

proposed and final CSAPR rules. See 75 

FR 45237 (Aug. 2, 2010); 76 FR 48238, 

(Aug. 8, 2011). The EPA proposes to use 

this same approach for this rule. 

Application of step two for this proposal 

is described in section V of this notice. 

Step 3—For states that are linked in 

step 2 to downwind air quality 

problems, the original CSAPR used a 

multi-factor test to evaluate emission 

reductions available in upwind states by 

application of uniform cost thresholds. 

The EPA evaluated NOX reductions that 

were available in upwind states by 

applying a marginal cost of NOX

emissions to entities in these states. 

This approach, in essence, simulated 

placing an economic value on NOX

emissions and evaluated emission 

reduction potential that was costeffective under this constraint. The EPA 

evaluated NOX reduction potential, cost, 

and downwind air quality 

improvements available at several cost 

thresholds in the multi-factor test. This 

evaluation quantified the magnitude of 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of a NAAQS downwind 

and apportioned upwind responsibility 

among linked states, an approach 

upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 

EPA v. EME Homer City.34 The EPA 

proposes to apply this approach to 

identify NOX emission reductions 

necessary to reduce interstate transport 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, updated to 

also explicitly consider over-control. 

For this proposal, the multi-factor test is 

also used to evaluate possible overcontrol by evaluating if an upwind state 

is linked solely to downwind air quality 

problems that are resolved at a given 

cost threshold, or if upwind states 

would reduce their emissions at a given 

cost threshold to the extent that they 

would no longer meet or exceed the 1% 

air quality contribution threshold. This 

evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and 

air quality improvements, including its 

consideration of potential over-control, 

results in the EPA’s determination of 

upwind emissions that significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS 

downwind. Next, emissions budgets are 

determined. Emissions budgets are 

remaining allowable emissions after the 

elimination of emissions identified as 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the standard downwind. 

The EPA’s assessment of significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance and 

development of EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets is described in 

section VI of this notice. 

Step 4—Finally, the original CSAPR 

used allowance trading programs to 

implement the necessary emission 

reductions. Specifically, the emissions 

budgets identified in step 3 were 

implemented via a tradable allowance 

program. Emissions allowances were 

issued to units covered by the trading 

program and the allowances can be 

turned in at the close of each 

compliance period to account for a 

specified amount of ozone season EGU 

NOX emissions. Additionally, the 

original CSAPR included variability 

limits, which define the amount by 

which collective emissions within a 

state may exceed the level of the 

budgets in a given year to account for 

variability in EGU operations. CSAPR 

set assurance levels equal to the sum of 

each state’s emissions budget plus its 

variability limit. The original CSAPR 

included assurance provisions that help 

to assure that state emissions remain 

below the assurance levels in each state 

by requiring additional allowance 

surrenders in the instance that 

emissions in the state exceed the state’s 

assurance level. This limited interstate 

trading approach is responsive to 

previous court decisions (see discussion 

in section IV of this preamble) and has 

been upheld in subsequent litigation 

regarding CSAPR. The EPA proposes to 

apply this approach to reduce interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Implementation using the CSAPR 

allowance trading program is described 

in section VII of this notice. 

2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of 

Transport Obligation 

Given the unique circumstances 

surrounding the implementation of the 

2008 ozone standard that have delayed 

state and EPA efforts to address 

interstate transport, at this time the EPA 

is focusing its efforts on the 

immediately available and cost-effective 

emission reductions that are achievable 

by the 2017 ozone season. 

a. Partial Remedy Under Proposed FIPs 

This rulemaking proposes to establish 

(or revise currently established) FIPs for 

23 eastern states under the good 

neighbor provision of the CAA. These 

FIPs contain requirements for EGUs in 

these states to reduce ozone season NOX

emissions for the 2017 ozone season. As 

noted in section VI, the EPA has 

identified important EGU emission 

reductions that are achievable starting 

for the 2017 ozone season in each of the 

covered states through actions such as 

turning on and operating existing 

pollution controls. These readily 

available emission reductions will assist 

downwind states to attain and maintain 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will 

provide human health and welfare 

benefits through reduced exposure to 

ozone pollution. 

While these reductions are necessary 

to assist downwind states attain and 

maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 

are necessary to address good neighbor 

obligations for these states, the EPA 

acknowledges that they may not be 

sufficient to fully address these states’ 

good neighbor obligations.35 With 

respect to the 2008 ozone standard, the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75715 

36On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo 

with preliminary air quality modeling data that 

characterized interstate ozone transport projected to 

2018. On April 8, 2015, the EPA held a workshop 

that continued a discussion with states on the path 

forward for addressing interstate transport for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 4, 2015, we 

published a NODA with updated modeling that 

states could use to support development of 

transport SIPs. 

37For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. 

(or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous 

states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming, and the eastern U.S. (or 

East) consists of the remaining states in the 

contiguous U.S. 38For example, EPA-State meetings held in 

Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and 

Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013. 

EPA has generally not attempted to 

quantify the ozone season NOX

reductions that may be necessary to 

eliminate all significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance in other states. Given the 

time constraints for implementing NOX

reduction strategies, the EPA believes 

that implementation of a full remedy 

may not be achievable for 2017, even 

though a partial remedy is achievable. 

To evaluate full elimination of a 

state’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone 

season NOX reductions should both be 

evaluated. However, the EPA is not 

proposing to quantify non-EGU 

emissions reductions to address 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS at this time because: (1) 

There is greater uncertainty in the nonEGU emission inventory estimates than 

for EGUs; and (2) there appear to be few 

non-EGU reductions that could be 

accomplished by the beginning of the 

2017 ozone season. This is discussed 

further in section VI of this proposal 

and in the Non-EGU NOX Mitigation 

Strategies TSD. We intend to continue 

to collect information and undertake 

analysis for potential future emissions 

reductions at non-EGUs that may be 

necessary to fully quantify states’ 

significant contributions in a future 

action. 

Because the reductions proposed in 

this action are EGU-only and because 

EPA has focused the policy analysis for 

this proposal on reductions available by 

2017, for most states they represent a 

first, partial step to addressing a given 

upwind state’s significant contribution 

to downwind air quality impacts for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Generally, a final 

determination of whether the proposed 

EGU NOX reductions represent a full or 

partial elimination of a state’s good 

neighbor obligation for the 2008 

NAAQS is subject to an evaluation of 

the contribution to interstate transport 

from additional emission sectors, such 

as non-EGUs. However, the EPA 

believes that it is beneficial to 

implement, without further delay, EGU 

NOX reductions that are achievable in 

the near term. The proposed NOX

emission reductions are needed 

(although they may not be all that is 

needed) for these states to eliminate 

their significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA’s current statutory deadlines to 

promulgate FIPs extend until 2017 for 

most states, and the EPA will remain 

mindful of those deadlines as it 

evaluates what further steps may be 

necessary to address interstate transport 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA 

seeks comment on possible future steps 

that may be necessary to resolve the 

remainder of the good neighbor 

obligation for the 2008 ozone standard. 

The EPA has shared information with 

states to facilitate the development of 

the ozone transport SIPs.36 The EPA 

encourages state SIP development and 

will continue to assist states in 

developing transport SIPs regardless of 

whether they are covered by this 

proposed FIP. Where a state would be 

covered by this proposed FIP, the EPA 

may be able to partially approve SIPs 

that include controls on EGU emissions 

that achieve ozone season NOX emission 

reductions and/or that establish EGU 

NOX ozone emissions budgets 

approximately equivalent to those 

identified in this proposal as achievable 

by 2017. (This is discussed in more 

detail in Section VII.) In these SIPS, 

states could also demonstrate that they 

are achieving the same level of 

emissions reductions through non-EGU 

source measures as they would achieve 

under the EGU budgets established in 

the FIP. For example, a SIP could set 

EGU budgets, but allow emission 

reductions from non-EGU sources as a 

compliance option. EPA also seeks 

comment on methods it can use to 

ensure that any non-EGU reductions are 

incremental to the base case, permanent, 

and enforceable. 

b. Potential for Full Remedy Under SIPs 

The EPA also notes that many states 

have already submitted, or are currently 

developing, SIP submittals to address 

the good neighbor provision of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone standard, and 

expects that some may assert that the 

state plan fully addresses the state’s 

good neighbor obligation. 

The EPA anticipates that those SIPs 

intending to fully address the state’s 

good neighbor obligations and for which 

the state is seeking approval may fall 

into one of two categories: 

(1) The SIP concludes that the state is 

meeting its good neighbor obligation 

without need for additional NOX

reductions. This SIP could include an 

adequate demonstration, using EPA or 

state-generated analytical results, which 

supports the state’s conclusion that the 

state contributes insignificant amounts 

to downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance problems in other states. 

The EPA would generally expect to 

propose full approval of these SIPs. 

(2) The SIP demonstrates that the state 

will timely achieve reductions that fully 

address its significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in downwind states. This 

demonstration could include an 

assessment of how all emissions source 

sectors contribute to the state’s 

contribution and how these sectors are 

controlled in that state. States wishing 

to seek full approval of good neighbor 

SIPs should contact their appropriate 

regional office. Guidance on developing 

such SIPs is outside the scope of this 

action, but the EPA intends to work 

closely with any state that is interested 

in pursuing this option. 

3. Why We Focus on Eastern States 

CSAPR and previous federal transport 

rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and 

CAIR, were designed to address 

collective contributions of ozone 

pollution from states in the eastern U.S. 

These rules did not address 

contributions in the 11 western 

contiguous United States.37 The EPA’s 

air quality modeling that supports this 

proposed rule includes data for the 

western states. This assessment shows 

that there are problem receptors in the 

West to which western states contribute 

amounts greater than or equal to the 

screening threshold used to evaluate 

transport across eastern states (i.e., 1 

percent of the NAAQS). However, there 

may be additional criteria to evaluate 

regarding transported air pollution in 

the West when evaluating upwind 

states’ contributions to downwind air 

quality impacts, such as those discussed 

in EPA-state meetings to discuss 

approaches for determining how 

emissions in upwind states impact air 

quality in downwind states.38 Given 

that the near-term 2017 implementation 

timeframe constrains the opportunity to 

conduct a further evaluation of western 

states, the EPA proposes to focus this 

rulemaking on eastern states. This focus 

would not relieve western states of 

obligations to address interstate 

transport under the Act. The EPA and 

states working together would continue 

to evaluate interstate transport in the 

western states on a case-by-case basis. 

The EPA would also continue to engage 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

39On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice 

of Data Availability (80 FR 46271) requesting 

comment on the air quality modeling platform and 

air quality modeling results that are being used for 

this proposed rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the 

EPA requested comment on the data and 

methodologies related to the 2011 and 2017 

emissions and the air quality modeling to project 

2017 concentrations and contributions. Comments 

received on that data via the NODA will be 

considered for the final rule. 

40The OTR was established by the CAA 

amendments of 1990 to facilitate addressing the 

ozone problem on a regional basis and consists of 

the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, the District of Columbia and northern 

Virginia. 42 U.S.C. 7511c, CAA section 184. 

41The methodology for developing the proposed 

budgets to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 

described in more detail in Sections VI and VII 

below. Section VI also includes an evaluation, as 

instructed by the court in EME Homer City II, to 

affirm that the proposed budgets do not overcontrol with respect to downwind air quality 

problems identified in this rule. 795 F.3d at 127– 

28. 

42 In 2012, the EPA also finalized two rules 

making certain revisions to CSAPR. 77 FR 10324 

(Feb. 21, 2012); 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012). 

Various petitioners filed legal challenges to these 

rules in the D.C. Circuit, and the cases were also 

held in abeyance pending the litigation in EME 

Homer City. See Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. 

EPA, No. 12–1163 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 6, 2012); 

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1346 

(D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 9, 2012). The cases currently 

remain pending in the D.C. Circuit. 

with western states on air quality 

modeling analyses and the implications 

of those analyses for interstate transport. 

While the EPA proposes to focus this 

rulemaking on eastern states, we seek 

comment on whether to include western 

states in this rule. The EPA notes that 

analyses developed to support this 

proposal, including air quality modeling 

and the EPA’s assessment of EGU NOX

mitigation potential, contain data that 

could be useful for states in developing 

SIPs or could be used to develop FIPs, 

where necessary. 

The EPA seeks comment on the data 

provided for western states, including 

emissions inventories, ozone 

concentration modeling, contribution 

modeling, and EPA’s assessment of EGU 

NOX reduction potential.39 These data 

are available in the docket for this 

proposal. The EPA also solicits 

comment on whether to promulgate 

FIPs to address interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 

western states, either in this rulemaking 

or in a subsequent rulemaking. 

4. Short-Term NOX Emissions 

In eastern states, the highest measured 

ozone days tend to occur within the 

hottest days, weeks, or months of the 

summer. On many high ozone days, 

there is higher demand for electricity 

(for instance, to run air conditioners). In 

general and technical discussions with 

representatives and officials of eastern 

states in April 2013 and April 2015, and 

in several letters to the EPA, officials 

from the Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR) 40 states suggested that EGU 

emissions transported from upwind 

states may disproportionally affect 

downwind ozone concentrations on 

peak ozone days in the eastern U.S. 

These representatives asked that the 

EPA consider additional ‘‘peak day’’ 

limits on EGU NOX emissions. 

Some states have also asked the EPA 

to consider whether existing emission 

controls are being turned off for short 

periods (e.g., multiple days) within the 

ozone season, for example during hot 

weeks. These states assert that 

emissions from short-term idling of 

controls may contribute to downwind 

ozone NAAQS exceedances in the 

eastern U.S. These states suggest that 

sub-seasonal limits on EGU NOX

emissions would reduce ozone 

formation that might be attributable to 

short-term idling of NOX controls. 

The EPA seeks comment on whether 

or not short-term (e.g., peak-day) EGU 

NOX emissions disproportionately 

impact downwind ozone 

concentrations, and if they do, then 

what EGU emission limits (e.g., daily or 

monthly emission rates or differential 

allowance surrender ratios on high 

ozone days) would be reasonable 

complements to the proposed seasonal 

CSAPR requirement to mitigate this 

impact. 

C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets 

As noted above, in EME Homer City 

II, the D.C. Circuit declared invalid the 

CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets of 11 states, holding 

that those budgets over-control with 

respect to the downwind air quality 

problems to which those states were 

linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 795 

F.3d at 129–30, 138. As to ten of these 

states, the court held that EPA’s 2014 

modeling conducted to support the RIA 

for CSAPR demonstrated that air quality 

problems at the downwind locations to 

which those states were linked would 

resolve by phase 2 of the CSAPR 

program without further transport 

regulation (either CAIR or CSAPR). Id. 

at 129–30. With respect to Texas, the 

court held that the record reflected that 

the ozone air quality problems to which 

the state was linked could be resolved 

at a lower cost threshold. Id. The court 

therefore remanded those budgets to 

EPA for reconsideration consistent with 

the court’s opinion. Id. at 138. The court 

instructed the EPA to act ‘‘promptly’’ in 

addressing these issues on remand. Id. 

at 132. 

The court’s decision explicitly applies 

to 11 state budgets involved in that 

litigation: Florida, Maryland, New 

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129– 

30, 138. EPA is proposing in this 

rulemaking to promulgate FIPs for nine 

of those states to address interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS: Maryland, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. The proposed FIPs incorporate 

revised emissions budgets that would 

supplant and replace the budgets 

promulgated in the CSAPR rule to 

address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 

same budgets remanded by the D.C. 

Circuit for reconsideration. Further, as 

proposed in this rule, these proposed 

budgets would be effective for the 2017 

ozone season, the same period in which 

the phase 2 budgets that were 

invalidated by the court are currently 

scheduled to become effective. 

Therefore, this proposed action provides 

an appropriate and timely response to 

the court’s remand by replacing the 

budgets promulgated in the CSAPR to 

address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which 

were declared invalid by the D.C. 

Circuit, with budgets developed to 

address the revised and more stringent 

2008 ozone NAAQS.41

The EPA notes that it is able to 

propose addressing the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets because the agency 

was already performing analysis and 

policy development for this proposal, 

which is directly applicable to this 

aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion. 

Separately, various petitioners filed 

legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit to a 

supplemental rule that added five states 

to the CSAPR ozone-season trading 

program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011). 

See Public Service Company of 

Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12–1023 (D.C. 

Cir., filed Jan. 13, 2012). The case was 

held in abeyance during the pendency 

of the litigation in EME Homer City. The 

case remains pending in the D.C. Circuit 

as of the date of signature of this 

proposed rule.42 The EPA notes that this 

rulemaking also proposes to promulgate 

FIPs for all five states added to CSAPR 

in the supplemental rule: Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin. The proposed FIPs 

incorporate revised emissions budgets 

that would supplant and replace the 

budgets promulgated in the 

supplemental CSAPR rule to address the 

1997 ozone NAAQS for these five states 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75717 

43See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR at 48220, and the 

CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 FR at 80760, 

December 27, 2011. 

44The EPA acknowledges that, despite its 

conclusion in CSAPR that the air quality problems 

to which Texas was linked in the original CSAPR 

were not fully resolved, the court concluded in EME 

Homer City II that the NOX ozone-season emissions 

budget finalized for Texas resulted in over-control 

as to the ozone air quality problems to which the 

state was linked. 795 F.3d at 129–30. As discussed 

below in section V, this rule proposes to respond 

to the remand of Texas’s NOX ozone-season 

emissions budget by promulgating a new budget to 

address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has also 

evaluated Texas’s contribution to any remaining air 

quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. [Text may be revised to reflect ongoing 

litigation.] 

and would be effective for the 2017 

ozone season. 

For the two remaining ozone-season 

states affected by this portion of the 

EME Homer City II decision, Florida and 

South Carolina, the EPA is not 

proposing in this action to promulgate 

FIPs because the air quality modeling 

performed to support the proposal does 

not indicate that these states are linked 

to any identified downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

with respect to the 2008 ozone standard. 

Inherently then, because the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, this modeling also does 

not indicate that Florida or South 

Carolina are linked to any remaining air 

quality concerns with respect to the 

1997 ozone standard for which the 

states were regulated in CSAPR. 

Accordingly, in order to address the 

Court’s remand with respect to these 

two states’ interstate transport 

responsibility under the 1997 ozone 

standard, the EPA proposes to remove 

these states from the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program beginning in 

2017 when the phase 2 ozone-season 

emissions budgets were scheduled to be 

implemented. 

The EPA notes that because the 

proposed rule modeling was performed 

prior to the D.C. Circuit’s issuance of 

EME Homer City II, that modeling 

assumed in its baseline for all states the 

emission reductions associated with the 

CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets. 

In the final rule modeling, the EPA will 

make any additional changes to the 

emissions inventories or modeling 

platform as may be justified based on 

comments received on the modeling 

performed for the proposed rule. In the 

event that air quality modeling 

conducted for the final rule 

demonstrates that either Florida or 

South Carolina are projected to 

significantly (e.g., greater than or equal 

to 1% of the NAAQS) contribute to an 

air quality problem with respect to the 

2008 ozone standard in the absence of 

a CSAPR-related emissions budget in 

place for those states, the EPA instead 

proposes to finalize revised budgets 

(presented with this rulemaking for 

comment) for whichever of those states 

may be identified as linked to such air 

quality problems rather than remove 

those states from the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program. The EPA has 

calculated emissions budgets for Florida 

and South Carolina that we are 

proposing to apply to those states if, and 

only if, the final rule air quality 

modeling identifies a linkage as just 

described. These proposed budgets are 

developed using the same methods 

applied to the 23 states that the EPA 

proposed to regulate in this action. 

These methods are described in section 

VI of this proposal and the methods and 

resulting emissions budgets are 

provided in the Ozone Transport Policy 

Analysis TSD. 

The EPA seeks comment on this 

approach with respect to addressing the 

remand as to Florida and South 

Carolina, including the proposed 

budgets that would apply to those states 

if a linkage is identified, which are 

available in the docket. 

Additionally, the EPA notes Florida 

and South Carolina may be relying upon 

emissions reductions that result from 

now-remanded emissions budgets in 

Florida and South Carolina to satisfy 

statutory obligations other than the 

interstate transport requirements. 

However, Florida and South Carolina 

may have an interest in submitting SIPs 

to continue their participation in the 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program in order to meet other Clean 

Air Act requirements. Likewise, to the 

extent that the final modeling indicates 

that other states included in the remand 

of the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets are not linked 

to any identified downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

with respect to the 2008 ozone standard, 

they would not be included in the final 

FIPs but they may be interested in 

continuing to participate in the CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season trading program in 

order to meet other Clean Air Act 

requirements. The EPA seeks comment 

on whether to allow Florida, South 

Carolina, and other similarly situated 

states (if any) to continue their 

participation in the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason program through voluntary SIPs 

that would retain the CSAPR NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets, 

contingent upon review and approval by 

the EPA. 

The D.C. Circuit also remanded 

without vacatur the CSAPR SO2 annual 

emissions budgets for four states 

(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and 

Texas) for reconsideration. 795 F.3d at 

129, 138. This proposal does not 

address the remand of these CSAPR 

phase 2 SO2 annual emissions budgets. 

The EPA intends to address the remand 

of the phase 2 SO2 annual emissions 

budgets separately. The existing CSAPR 

annual emissions budgets and 

implementation programs (CSAPR SO2

annual and NOX annual requirements), 

which address interstate transport for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

continue to apply at this time. 

D. Addressing Outstanding Transport 

Obligations for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 

In the original CSAPR, the EPA noted 

that the reductions for 11 states may not 

be sufficient to fully eliminate all 

significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance for certain downwind 

areas with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.43 The 11 states are: Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.44 In the 

original CSAPR, the EPA’s analysis 

projected continued nonattainment and 

maintenance problems at downwind 

receptors to which these upwind states 

were linked after implementation of the 

CSAPR trading programs. Specifically, 

the persistent ozone problems were 

expected in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; 

Houston, Texas; and Allegan, Michigan 

according to the remedy case modeling 

conducted for the final rule. At that time 

the EPA did not address whether 

additional ozone season NOX emission 

reductions would be needed in these 

states to fully resolve the good neighbor 

obligation under the CAA with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS beyond the 

EGU requirements promulgated in 

CSAPR. 

To evaluate whether additional 

emission reductions would be needed in 

these 11 states to address the states’ full 

good neighbor obligation for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, the EPA reviewed the 

2017 baseline air quality modeling 

conducted for this proposal, which 

includes emission reductions associated 

with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season 

budgets. 

The updated 2017 air quality 

modeling shows that the predicted 

average DVs and maximum DVs for 

2017 are below the level of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for the downwind 

receptors of concern that the 11 states 

were linked to in the original CSAPR for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further, the 

2017 air quality modeling shows that 

there are no other nonattainment or 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

45 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). 

46See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 

134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014). 

47EPA’s general approach to infrastructure SIP 

submissions is explained in greater detail in 

individual notices acting or proposing to act on 

state infrastructure SIP submissions and in 

guidance. See, e.g., Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 

2013). 

48 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). 

49 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

50 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). 

51 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

52 70 FR 21147 (May 12, 2005). 

53 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006). 

54 76 FR 48208, 48217 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

55 76 FR 48208. 

maintenance receptors to which these 

areas would be linked with respect to 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This 

conclusion demonstrates that no further 

emission reductions are required to 

address the interstate transport 

obligations of these states with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 

therefore EPA finds that the original 

CSAPR emissions budgets satisfy these 

states’ full obligation to address 

interstate ozone transport under the 

good neighbor provision of the CAA as 

to that NAAQS. Therefore, we propose 

to find that the original CSAPR FIPs 

fully satisfy those 11 states’ good 

neighbor CAA obligations regarding the 

emissions that contribute significantly 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

IV. Legal Authority 

A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed 

Rule 

1. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this 

proposed action is provided by the CAA 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 

Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the 

CAA provide the primary statutory 

bases for this proposal. The most 

relevant portions of section 110 are 

subsections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2), and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(c)(1). 

Section 110(a)(1) provides that states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and that these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.45 The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised 

NAAQS.46

The EPA has historically referred to 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the applicable requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required content of these 

submissions. It includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must address.47 All states, 

regardless of whether the state includes 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

the relevant NAAQS, must have SIPs 

that meet the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2), including provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) described 

further below and which are the focus 

of this proposal. 

Section 110(c)(1) requires the 

Administrator to promulgate a FIP at 

any time within 2 years after the 

Administrator: (1) Finds that a state has 

failed to make a required SIP 

submission, (2) finds a SIP submission 

to be incomplete pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(C), or (3) disapproves 

a SIP submission, unless the state 

corrects the deficiency through a SIP 

revision that the Administrator 

approves before the FIP is 

promulgated.48

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known 

as the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ 

provides the basis for this proposed 

action. It requires that each state SIP 

shall include provisions sufficient to 

‘‘prohibit[] . . . any source or other type 

of emissions activity within the State 

from emitting any air pollutants in 

amounts which will—(I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other State with respect to any 

[NAAQS].’’ 49

The EPA has previously issued three 

rules interpreting and clarifying the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for states in the eastern half of the 

United States. These rules, and the 

associated court decisions addressing 

these rules, provide important guidance 

regarding the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 

1998, addressed the good neighbor 

provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.50 The rule required 22 states 

and the District of Columbia to amend 

their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that 

contribute to ozone nonattainment. The 

EPA set a NOX ozone-season budget for 

each affected state, essentially a cap on 

ozone season NOX emissions in the 

state. Sources in the affected states were 

given the option to participate in a 

regional cap-and-trade program, known 

as the NOX Budget Trading Program 

(NBP). The NOX SIP Call was largely 

upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Michigan 

v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 

cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001). 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

promulgated in 2005, addressed both 

the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards 

under the good neighbor provision.51

CAIR required SIP revisions in 28 states 

and the District of Columbia to ensure 

that certain emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and/or NOX—important 

precursors of regionally transported 

PM2.5 (SO2 and NOX) and ozone 

(NOX)—were prohibited. Like the NOX

SIP Call, states were given the option to 

participate in a regional cap-and-trade 

program to satisfy their SIP obligations. 

When the EPA promulgated the final 

CAIR in May 2005, the EPA also issued 

a national rule finding that states had 

failed to submit SIPs to address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, given that 

states were required by the CAA to have 

submitted section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs 

for those standards by July 2000.52 This 

finding of failure to submit triggered a 

2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs 

to address interstate transport, and on 

March 15, 2006, the EPA promulgated 

FIPs to ensure that the emission 

reductions required by CAIR would be 

achieved on schedule.53 CAIR was 

remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in 

North Carolina, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. 

For more information on the legal 

considerations of CAIR and the D.C. 

Circuit holding in North Carolina, refer 

to the preamble of the final CSAPR 

rule.54

In 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR 

to address the issues raised by the 

remand of CAIR and additionally to 

address the good neighbor provision for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.55 CSAPR 

requires 28 states to reduce SO2

emissions, annual NOX emissions, and/ 

or ozone season NOX emissions that 

significantly contribute to other states’ 

nonattainment or interfere with other 

states’ abilities to maintain these air 

quality standards. To accomplish 

implementation aligned with the 

applicable attainment deadlines, the 

EPA promulgated FIPs for each of the 28 

states covered by CSAPR. The FIPs 

implement regional cap-and-trade 

programs to achieve the necessary 

reductions. States can submit good 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75719 

56EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

57EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 

11–1302 (D.C. Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No. 

1417012 (denying the EPA’s motion for rehearing 

en banc). 

58EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 

S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other 

parties’ petitions for certiorari). 

59EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014). 

60 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). 

61One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR 

ozone season requirement under this proposal. The 

remaining 22 states were included in the original 

CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

neighbor SIPs at any time that, if 

approved by the EPA, would replace the 

CSAPR FIP for that state. As discussed 

below, CSAPR was the subject of 

decisions by both the D.C. Circuit and 

the Supreme Court, which largely 

upheld the rule. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and holding, 

among other things, that states had no 

obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs 

until the EPA had first quantified each 

state’s good neighbor obligation.56 The 

implication of this decision was that the 

EPA did not have authority to 

promulgate FIPs as a result of states’ 

failure to submit or EPA’s disapproval 

of such SIPs. The EPA sought review, 

first with the D.C. Circuit en banc and 

then with the Supreme Court. While the 

D.C. Circuit declined to consider the 

EPA’s appeal en banc,57 on January 23, 

2013, the Supreme Court granted the 

EPA’s petition for certiorari.58

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

issued a decision reversing the D.C. 

Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion on 

CSAPR and held, among other things, 

that under the plain language of the 

CAA, states must submit SIPs 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

within 3 years of promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, regardless of 

whether the EPA first provides 

guidance, technical data or rulemaking 

to quantify the state’s obligation.59

Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed that 

states have an obligation in the first 

instance to address the good neighbor 

provision after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, a holding that also 

applies to states’ obligation to address 

interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The Supreme Court remanded 

the litigation to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. 

Finally, on July 28, 2015, the D.C. 

Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR 

regarding the remaining legal issues 

raised by the Petitioners on remand 

from the Supreme Court, EME Homer 

City II, 795 F.3d 118. This decision 

largely upheld EPA’s approach to 

addressing interstate transport in 

CSAPR, leaving the rule in place and 

affirming EPA’s interpretation of various 

statutory provisions and EPA’s technical 

decisions. The decision also remands 

the rule without vacatur for 

reconsideration of EPA’s emissions 

budgets for certain states. In particular 

and as discussed in more detail in 

section III, the court declared invalid 

the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets of 11 states, holding 

that those budgets over-control with 

respect to the downwind air quality 

problems to which those states were 

linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The 

court’s decision explicitly applies to 11 

states: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129– 

30, 138. The court also remanded 

without vacatur the SO2 annual 

emissions budgets for four states 

(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and 

Texas) for reconsideration. Id. at 129, 

138. The court instructed the EPA to act 

‘‘promptly’’ in addressing these issues 

on remand. Id. at 132. 

Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also 

gives the Administrator of the EPA 

general authority to prescribe such 

regulations as are necessary to carry out 

her functions under the Act.60 Pursuant 

to this section, the EPA has authority to 

clarify the applicability of CAA 

requirements. In this action, among 

other things, the EPA is clarifying the 

applicability of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

by identifying NOX emissions in certain 

states that must be prohibited pursuant 

to this section with respect to the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS promulgated in 2008. 

In particular, the EPA is proposing to 

use its authority under sections 110 and 

301 to promulgate FIPs that establish or 

revise EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets for 23 eastern states 

to mitigate their significant contribution 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance in another state. As 

described in more detail later in this 

notice, generally the EPA is proposing 

to update each affected state’s FIP, 

including revising the existing CSAPR 

budgets.61 The EPA is also proposing to 

respond to the court’s remand in EME 

Homer City II with respect to the 

remanded NOX ozone-season emissions 

budgets. 

2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered 

by the Proposed Rule 

a. Status of State Good Neighbor SIPs for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

As discussed above, all states have an 

obligation to submit SIPs that address 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2) within 3 years of promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS. With 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

states were required to submit SIPs 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

by March 12, 2011. If the EPA finds that 

a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet 

its statutory obligation to address 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if EPA 

disapproves a good neighbor SIP, then 

the EPA has not only the authority but 

the obligation, pursuant to section 

110(c)(1), to promulgate a FIP to address 

the CAA requirement within 2 years of 

the finding or disapproval. 

On July 13, 2015, the EPA published 

a rule finding that 24 states failed to 

make complete submissions that 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate 

transport of pollution as to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 

13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). 

The finding action triggered a 2-year 

deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to 

address the good neighbor provision for 

these states by August 12, 2017. The 

states included in this finding of failure 

to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, 

California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, 

Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. 

Since the EPA issued the findings 

notice, EPA has received a SIP 

submission addressing the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS from the state of Maine on 

which the EPA has not yet proposed 

action. 

Several additional states— 

Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, New York, 

Delaware, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, 

Wisconsin, and the District of 

Columbia—have previously submitted 

SIPs to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. To the extent that the 

EPA has not finalized action on these 

submitted SIPs, these states can evaluate 

their submissions in light of this 

proposal and the actions we are taking 

to reduce interstate ozone transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to a 

judgment issued on May 15, 2015, the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

62See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 

4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). 

63 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013). 

64 Id. at 14683. 

65 Id. 

66 Id. 

67Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546 (6th Cir., 

filed Apr. 30, 2013). 

68Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546, 

Document No. 74–1 (Mar. 13, 2015). 

EPA is required to take final action on 

the interstate transport SIPs for 

Nebraska and North Dakota by January 

29, 2016, and for Maryland, Texas, Ohio 

and Indiana by June 7, 2016.62 In the 

event that the EPA finalizes disapproval 

or partial disapproval of any of these 

SIPs, that action would trigger the EPA’s 

FIP authority to implement the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for those states. Alternatively, 

if any of these states withdraws its 2008 

ozone interstate transport SIP submittal, 

the EPA plans to issue a separate notice 

of finding of failure to submit for these 

states and will finalize FIPs as 

appropriate. 

On March 7, 2013, the EPA finalized 

action on the State of Kentucky’s SIP 

submission addressing, among other 

things, the good neighbor provision 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.63 The EPA disapproved the 

submission as to the good neighbor 

requirements. In the notice, the EPA 

explained that the disapproval of the 

good neighbor portion of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission did not 

trigger a mandatory duty for the EPA to 

promulgate a FIP to address these 

requirements.64 Citing the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision EME Homer City Generation v. 

EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), the EPA 

explained that the court concluded 

states have no obligation to make a SIP 

submission to address the good 

neighbor provision for a new or revised 

NAAQS until the EPA first defines a 

state’s obligations pursuant to that 

section.65 Therefore, because a good 

neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone 

standard was not at that time required, 

the EPA indicated that its disapproval 

action would not trigger an obligation 

for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to 

address the interstate transport 

requirements.66

On April 30, 2013, the Sierra Club 

filed a petition for review of the EPA’s 

action based on the Agency’s conclusion 

that the FIP clock was not triggered by 

the disapproval of Kentucky’s good 

neighbor SIP.67 As described above, on 

April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

issued a decision reversing and vacating 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME 

Homer City. Following the Supreme 

Court decision, the EPA requested, and 

the court granted, vacatur and remand 

of the portion of the EPA’s final action 

that determined that the FIP obligation 

was not triggered by the disapproval.68

In this notice, the EPA is proposing to 

correct the portion of the disapproval 

notice indicating that the FIP clock 

would not be triggered by the SIP 

disapproval. The EPA believes that the 

EPA’s obligation to develop a FIP was 

triggered on the date of the judgment 

issued by the Supreme Court in EPA v. 

EME Homer City, June 2, 2014, and the 

EPA is obligated to issue a FIP at any 

time within two years of that date. The 

EPA does not believe that the FIP 

obligation was triggered as of the date of 

the SIP disapproval because the 

controlling law as of that date was the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer 

City, which held that states had no 

obligation to submit a SIP and the EPA 

had no authority to issue a FIP until the 

EPA first quantified each state’s 

emission reduction obligation under the 

good neighbor provision. Accordingly, 

the most reasonable conclusion is that 

the EPA’s FIP obligation was triggered 

when the Supreme Court clarified the 

state and federal obligations with 

respect to the good neighbor provision. 

Thus, the EPA proposes to find that the 

FIP obligation was triggered as of June 

2, 2014, and that the EPA is obligated 

to promulgate a FIP that corrects the 

deficiency by June 2, 2016. 

b. States Submitting Transport SIPs 

Before FIP Is Finalized 

The EPA recognizes that some states 

are currently developing SIP 

submissions or revising their submitted 

SIPs to address the good neighbor 

provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The EPA encourages SIP 

development and will continue to assist 

states in developing transport SIPs. As 

noted above, the EPA is subject to a 

court order requiring final action on 

certain state SIPs by January 29, and 

June 7, 2016. 

The fact that the EPA is proposing a 

FIP for any state does not suggest that 

the EPA has determined that the state’s 

submittal is not approvable. If EPA 

finalizes approval of a state’s good 

neighbor SIP before the FIP is applied, 

the FIP that is now being proposed for 

that state would no longer be necessary. 

Further, the EPA notes that the 

remedy being proposed in this notice 

are not the only means a state has to 

mitigate interstate ozone transport 

under the good neighbor provision. 

States could submit measures that 

strengthen their current SIPs and 

achieve reductions that are similar to, or 

more efficacious in eliminating 

significant transport than, those that 

would be achieved by the FIPs proposed 

in this action. The EPA strongly 

encourages such strengthening actions. 

If a state submits a SIP that is approved 

(in whole or in part) by the EPA via 

notice-and-comment rulemaking and 

that achieves ozone season NOX

emission reductions and/or establishes 

EGU NOX ozone emissions budgets 

approximately equivalent to those 

identified by EPA as achievable by 

2017, the EPA does not anticipate 

subjecting the state to the EPA’s partial 

remedy in this FIP action. 

V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality 

and Upwind-State Contributions 

In this section, we describe the air 

quality modeling performed to (1) 

identify locations where we expect there 

to be nonattainment or maintenance 

problems for 8-hour ozone for the 2017 

analytic year chosen for this proposal, 

and (2) quantify the contributions from 

anthropogenic emissions from upwind 

states to downwind ozone 

concentrations at monitoring sites 

projected to be in nonattainment or have 

maintenance problems in 2017 for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Air quality 

modeling to assess the health and 

welfare benefits of the emissions 

reductions expected to result from this 

proposal is described in section VIII. 

This section includes information on 

the air quality modeling platform used 

in support of the proposed rule with a 

focus on the base year and future base 

case emission inventories. We also 

provide the projection of 2017 ozone 

concentrations and the interstate 

contributions for 8-hour ozone. The Air 

Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document (AQM TSD) in the docket for 

this proposed rule contains more 

detailed information on the air quality 

modeling aspects of this rulemaking. 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA 

published a Notice of Data Availability 

(80 FR 46271) requesting comment on 

the air quality modeling platform and 

air quality modeling results that are 

being used for this proposed rule. 

Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA 

requested comment on the data and 

methodologies related to the 2011 and 

2017 emissions and the air quality 

modeling to project 2017 concentrations 

and contributions. Comments received 

on that data via the NODA will be 

considered for the final rule. 

A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling 

Platform 

The EPA performed air quality 

modeling for three emissions scenarios: 

A 2011 base year, a 2017 baseline, and 

a 2017 illustrative control case that 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75721 

69The 2017 illustrative control case is relevant to 

the EPA’s policy analysis discussed in section VI 

and to the benefits and costs assessment discussed 

in section VIII of this preamble. It is not used to 

identify nonattainment or maintenance receptors or 

quantify the contributions from upwind states to 

these receptors. 

70 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, 

and Regional Haze’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 

2014. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/

guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance2014.pdf. 

71Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions Version 6.11 User’s Guide. Environ 

International Corporation. Novato, CA. December, 

2014. 

72 During the 2013 and 2014 pre-proposal 

comment periods for the modeling platforms, the 

attainment deadline for the downwind areas was 

established by regulation as December 2018. The 

2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule revised 

the attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment 

areas currently designated as Moderate from 

December 2018 to July 2018, which means 

attainment determinations have to be based on 

design values calculated using 2015 through 2017 

ozone season data. Therefore, in its July 2015 

NODA and in this proposal, the EPA has adjusted 

the future year modeling to be for the year 2017 

rather than 2018. 

reflects the emission reductions 

expected from the proposed rule.69 We 

selected 2011 as the base year to reflect 

the most recent National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). In addition, the 

meteorological conditions during the 

summer of 2011 were generally 

conducive for ozone formation across 

much of the U.S., particularly the 

eastern U.S. For example, as described 

in the AQM TSD, an analysis of 

meteorological-adjusted trends in 

seasonal mean ozone for the period 

2000 through 2012 indicates that, on a 

regional basis, the summer of 2011 was 

typical, in terms of the presence of 

conditions conducive to ozone 

formation, of high ozone years in the 

eastern U.S. Additional analyses of 

meteorological conditions during the 

summer of 2011 in comparison to 

conditions during several other recent 

years can be found in the AQM TSD. 

The use of meteorological data 

representing conditions that are 

conducive for ozone formation is 

consistent with the EPA’s modeling 

guidance for attainment 

demonstrations.70 As noted above, we 

selected 2017 as the projected analysis 

year to coincide with the attainment 

date for moderate areas under the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. We used the 2017 

baseline emissions in our air quality 

modeling to identify future 

nonattainment and maintenance 

locations and to quantify the 

contributions of emissions from upwind 

states to 8-hour ozone concentrations at 

downwind locations. We used the air 

quality modeling of the 2017 baseline 

and 2017 illustrative control case 

emissions to estimate the air quality 

impacts and health benefits of this 

proposal. 

The EPA used the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) 

version 6.11 71 to simulate pollutant 

concentrations for the 2011 base year 

and the 2017 future year scenarios. 

CAMx is a grid cell-based, multipollutant photochemical model that 

simulates the formation and fate of 

ozone and fine particles in the 

atmosphere. The CAMx model contains 

certain probing tools including source 

apportionment techniques that are 

designed to quantify the contribution of 

emissions from various sources and 

areas to ozone in other downwind 

locations. The CAMx model 

applications were performed for a 

modeling region (i.e., modeling domain) 

that covers the contiguous 48 states, the 

District of Columbia, and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico using a 

horizontal resolution of 12 x 12 km. A 

map of the air quality modeling domain 

is provided in the AQM TSD. 

The 2011-based air quality modeling 

platform includes 2011 base year 

emissions and future year projections of 

these emissions and 2011 meteorology 

for air quality modeling with CAMx. In 

the remainder of this section, we 

provide an overview of (1) the 2011 and 

2017 emissions inventories, (2) the 

methods for projecting future 

nonattainment and maintenance along 

with a list of 2017 baseline 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors in the eastern U.S., (3) the 

approach to developing metrics to 

measure interstate contributions to 8- 

hour ozone, and (4) the predicted 

interstate contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance in the 

eastern U.S. We also identify which 

predicted interstate contributions are at 

or above the CSAPR screening 

threshold, which we are proposing to 

apply for regulation of interstate 

transport of ozone for purposes of the 

2008 ozone standard. 

B. Emission Inventories 

The EPA developed emission 

inventories for this proposal including 

emission estimates for EGUs, non-EGU 

point sources, stationary nonpoint 

sources, onroad mobile sources, 

nonroad mobile sources, wild fires, 

prescribed fires, and for biogenic 

emissions that are not the result of 

human activities. The EPA’s air quality 

modeling relies on this comprehensive 

set of emission inventories because 

emissions from multiple source 

categories are needed to model ambient 

air quality and to facilitate comparison 

of model outputs with ambient 

measurements. 

To prepare the emission inventories 

for air quality modeling, the EPA 

processed the emission inventories 

using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System 

version 3.6.5 to produce the gridded, 

hourly, speciated, model-ready 

emissions for input to the CAMx air 

quality model. Additional information 

on the development of the emission 

inventories and on data sets used during 

the emissions modeling process are 

provided in the TSD ‘‘Preparation of 

Emissions Inventories for the Version 

6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling 

Platform,’’ hereafter known as the 

‘‘Emissions Modeling TSD.’’ This TSD is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule and at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/emch/index.html#2011. 

The EPA published Federal Register 

notices on November 27, 2013 (78 FR 

70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 

2437), to take comment on the 2011 and 

2018 72 emission modeling platforms, 

including data and documentation on 

the methods used to prepare the 

emission inventories for air quality 

modeling. Comments were collected for 

the 2011 and 2018 emissions modeling 

platforms under the dockets EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0743 and EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0809, respectively. Comments 

from those notices that were accepted 

by the EPA have been incorporated into 

the emission modeling data and 

procedures for this proposal as 

documented in the Emissions Modeling 

TSD. As indicated above, the updated 

emission inventories, methodologies, 

and data were provided in a Notice of 

Data Availability published in the 

Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80 

FR 46271). Comments received on the 

proposal data will be considered for the 

final rule. 

1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data 

Sets 

The EPA developed emission data 

representing the year 2011 to support air 

quality modeling of a base year from 

which future air quality could be 

forecasted. The EPA used the 2011 

National Emission Inventory (NEI) 

version 2 (2011NEIv2), released in 

March 2015, as the primary basis for the 

U.S. inventories supporting the 2011 air 

quality modeling. Documentation on the 

2011NEIv2 is available in the 2011 

National Emissions Inventory, version 2 

TSD available in the docket for this 

proposed rule and at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011

inventory.html#inventorydoc. The 

future base case scenario modeled for 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

73Biogenic emissions and emissions from wild 

fires and prescribed fires were held constant 

between 2011 and 2017 since (1) these emissions 

are tied to the 2011 meteorological conditions and 

(2) the focus of this rule is on the contribution from 

anthropogenic emissions to projected ozone 

nonattainment and maintenance. 

74 Detailed information and documentation of 

EPA’s Base Case, including all the underlying 

assumptions, data sources, and architecture 

parameters can be found on EPA’s Web site at: 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling. 

75 In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court 

reversed on narrow grounds a portion of the D.C. 

Circuit decision upholding the MATS rule, finding 

that EPA erred by not considering cost when 

determining that regulation of EGUs was 

‘‘appropriate’’ pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1). 

135 S.Ct. 192 (2015). The case was remanded to the 

D.C. Circuit for further proceedings, and the MATS 

rule currently remains in place. 

76For any specific version of IPM there is a cutoff 

date after which it is no longer possible to 

incorporate updates into the input databases. For 

version 5.14, that cutoff date was November 2014. 

77Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units, 80 FR 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015). 

2017 includes a representation of 

changes in activity data and of predicted 

emission reductions from on-the-books 

actions, including planned emission 

control installations and promulgated 

federal measures that affect 

anthropogenic emissions.73

2. Development of Emission Inventories 

for EGUs 

Annual NOX and SO2 emissions for 

EGUs in the 2011NEIv2 are based 

primarily on data from continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS), 

with other EGU pollutants estimated 

using emission factors and annual heat 

input data reported to the EPA. For 

EGUs without CEMS, the EPA used data 

submitted to the NEI by the states. For 

more information on the details of how 

the 2011 EGU emissions were 

developed and prepared for air quality 

modeling, see the Emissions Modeling 

TSD. 

The EPA projected future 2017 

baseline EGU emissions using version 

5.14 of the Integrated Planning Model 

(IPM) (http://www.epa.gov/powersector

modeling). IPM, developed by ICF 

Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peerreviewed, multi-regional, dynamic, 

deterministic linear programming model 

of the contiguous U.S. electric power 

sector. It provides forecasts of least cost 

capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, 

and emission control strategies while 

meeting energy demand and 

environmental, transmission, dispatch, 

and reliability constraints. EPA has used 

IPM for over two decades to better 

understand power sector behavior under 

future business-as-usual conditions and 

to evaluate the economic and emission 

impacts of prospective environmental 

policies. The model is designed to 

reflect electricity markets as accurately 

as possible. The EPA uses the best 

available information from utilities, 

industry experts, gas and coal market 

experts, financial institutions, and 

government statistics as the basis for the 

detailed power sector modeling in IPM. 

The model documentation provides 

additional information on the 

assumptions discussed here as well as 

all other model assumptions and 

inputs.74

The IPM version 5.14 base case 

accounts for comments received as a 

result of the NODAs released in 2013 

and 2014 (including control 

configuration) as well as updated 

environmental regulations. This 

projected base case accounts for the 

effects of the finalized MATS 75 and 

CSAPR rules, New Source Review 

settlements, and on-the-books state rules 

through 2014 76 impacting SO2, NOX, 

directly emitted particulate matter, and 

CO2, and final actions the EPA has taken 

to implement the Regional Haze Rule. 

The EPA’s IPM base case also includes 

two federal non-air rules affecting EGUs: 

The Cooling Water Intake Structure 

(Clean Water Act section 316(b)) rule 

and the Coal Combustion Residuals 

(CCR) rule. Documentation of IPM 

version 5.14 is in the docket and 

available online at www.epa.gov/

powersectormodeling. 

After the receptor and contribution 

analyses for this proposal were 

underway, the EPA released an updated 

IPM base case, version 5.15, and the 

final Clean Power Plan (CPP).77 In order 

to reflect all on-the-books policies as 

well as the most current power sector 

modeling data, the EPA performed an 

assessment, described in section V–D 

below, to reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15 

with the CPP in the base case for this 

proposal. The EPA plans to use this base 

case, including the final CPP, for its 

modeling analysis for the final rule. 

However, EPA’s analysis for the final 

rule may include updated or different 

assumptions about the inclusion of the 

CPP and the CSAPR phase 2 NOX

ozone-season or SO2 annual emissions 

budgets for those states with budgets 

that were declared invalid and 

remanded to the EPA by the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City II. 

In projecting future 2017 baseline 

EGU emissions, the EPA adjusted the 

2018 IPM version 5.14 base case results 

to account for three categories of 

differences between 2017 and 2018. The 

categories are: (1) Adjusting NOX

emissions for units with SCRs in 2018 

but that are assumed not to operate or 

be installed in 2017; (2) adding NOX

emissions for units that are retiring in 

2018 but are projected to operate in 

2017; and (3) adjusting NOX emissions 

for coal-fired units that are projected to 

convert to natural gas (i.e., ‘‘coal-togas’’) in 2018, but are still projected to 

burn coal in 2017. These adjustments 

were only made to the air quality flat 

file outputs of IPM and are discussed in 

greater detail in the IPM documentation 

found in the docket for this proposed 

rule. 

3. Development of Emission Inventories 

for Non-EGU Point Sources 

The 2011 non-EGU point sources in 

the 2011 base case inventory match 

those in the 2011NEIv2. Details on the 

development of the 2011 emission 

inventories can be found in the 

2011NEIv2 TSD. Prior to air quality 

modeling, the emission inventories 

must be processed into a format that is 

appropriate for the air quality model to 

use. Details on the processing of the 

emissions for 2011 and on the 

development of the 2017 non-EGU 

emission inventories are available in the 

Emissions Modeling TSD. Projection 

factors and percent reductions in this 

proposal reflect comments received as a 

result of the NODAs in 2013 and 2014, 

along with emission reductions due to 

national and local rules, control 

programs, plant closures, consent 

decrees and settlements. Reductions 

from several Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

standards are included. Projection 

approaches for corn ethanol and 

biodiesel plants, refineries and 

upstream impacts represent 

requirements pursuant to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA). 

For aircraft emissions at airports, the 

EPA developed projection factors based 

on activity growth projected by the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system, 

published in March 2013. 

Point source and nonpoint oil and gas 

emissions are projected to 2018 using 

regional projection factors by product 

type using Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO) 2014 projections to year 2017. 

NOX and VOC reductions that are cobenefits to the NESHAP and New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (RICE) are reflected 

for select source categories. In addition, 

Natural Gas Turbines and Process 

Heaters NSPS NOX controls and NSPS 

Oil and Gas VOC controls are reflected 

for select source categories. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75723 

4. Development of Emission Inventories 

for Onroad Mobile Sources 

The EPA developed the onroad 

mobile source emissions for states other 

than California using the EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

2014. We computed the emissions 

within SMOKE by multiplying emission 

factors developed using MOVES with 

the appropriate activity data. We also 

used MOVES emission factors to 

estimate emissions from refueling. The 

2011 onroad mobile source emissions 

used in the inventory for this rule are 

similar but not identical to the 

2011NEIv2 emissions due to a more 

detailed treatment of E–85 emissions in 

the 2011 emission modeling platform 

used for this rule. Additional 

information on the approach for 

generating the onroad mobile source 

emissions is available in the Emissions 

Modeling TSD. Onroad mobile source 

emissions for California are consistent 

with the emissions submitted by the 

state as reflected in the 2011NEIv2. 

In the future-year modeling for mobile 

sources, we included all national 

measures known at the time of 

modeling. The future scenarios for 

mobile sources reflect projected changes 

to fuel usage and onroad mobile control 

programs finalized as of the date of the 

model run. Finalized rules that are 

incorporated into the mobile source 

emissions include: Tier 3 Standards 

(March 2014), the Light-Duty 

Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013), 

Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse 

Gas Rule (August 2011), the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (February 2010), the 

Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 

2010), the Corporate-Average Fuel 

Economy standards for 2008–2011 

(April 2010), the 2007 Onroad HeavyDuty Rule (February 2009), and the 

Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 

(MSAT2) (February 2007). Impacts of 

rules that were in effect in 2011 are 

reflected in the 2011 base year 

emissions at a level that corresponds to 

the extent to which each rule had 

penetrated into the fleet and fuel supply 

by the year 2011. Local control 

programs such as the California LEV III 

program are included in the onroad 

mobile source emissions. Activity data 

for onroad mobile sources was projected 

using AEO 2014. Because EPA changed 

the model year from 2018 to 2017 

between its pre-proposal modeling and 

the modeling conducted for this 

proposal (see footnote 64), and due to 

the substantial amount of lead time 

required to generate emission factors 

with MOVES, the EPA was unable to 

directly generate emission factors for 

2017 prior to the modeling used to 

support this proposed rule. Therefore, 

for this proposal, future year onroad 

mobile source emissions were computed 

for 2018 and adjusted to 2017 levels 

using adjustment factors derived from 

national MOVES runs for 2017 and 

2018. Emission factors will be generated 

directly for 2017 prior to air quality 

modeling for the final rule. 

5. Development of Emission Inventories 

for Commercial Marine Category 3 

(Vessel) 

The commercial marine category 3 

vessel (‘‘C3 marine’’) emissions in the 

2011 base case emission inventory for 

this proposed rule are consistent with 

those in the 2011NEIv2. These 

emissions reflect reductions associated 

with the Emissions Control Area 

proposal to the International Maritime 

Organization control strategy (EPA– 

420–F–10–041, August 2010); 

reductions of NOX, VOC, and CO 

emissions for new C3 engines that went 

into effect in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits 

that went into effect as early as 2010. 

The cumulative impacts of these rules 

through 2017 are incorporated in the 

2017 projected emissions for C3 marine 

sources. 

6. Development of Emission Inventories 

for Other Nonroad Mobile Sources 

To develop the nonroad mobile 

source emission inventories other than 

C3 marine for the modeling platform, 

the EPA used monthly, county, and 

process level emissions output from the 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

nmim.htm). State-submitted emissions 

data for nonroad sources were used for 

Texas and California. These emissions 

are consistent with those in the 

2011NEIv2. 

The EPA also used NMIM to project 

nonroad mobile emissions for future 

years. Development of the future year 

nonroad emissions require a substantial 

amount of lead time and the emissions 

were prepared for the year 2018 before 

the model year was changed to 2017 

when the attainment date was revised in 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP 

Requirements Rule. To develop a 2017 

nonroad emissions inventory for this 

proposal that accounted for the 

difference between 2017 and 2018 

emissions levels, we calculated the 

nonroad emissions for 2018, and then 

adjusted those emissions to 2017 levels 

using national adjustment factors 

derived from national NMIM runs for 

2017 and 2018. Emissions specific to 

2017 will be developed for the modeling 

that will support the final rule. The 

nonroad mobile emission control 

programs include reductions to 

locomotives, diesel engines and marine 

engines, along with standards for fuel 

sulfur content and evaporative 

emissions. A comprehensive list of 

control programs included for mobile 

sources is available in the Emissions 

Modeling TSD. 

7. Development of Emission Inventories 

for Nonpoint Sources 

The emissions for stationary nonpoint 

sources in our 2011 base case emission 

inventory are largely consistent with 

those in the 2011NEIv2. For more 

information on the nonpoint sources in 

the 2011 base case inventory, see the 

Emissions Modeling TSD and the 

2011NEIv2 TSD. 

Where states provided EPA with 

information about projected control 

measures or changes in nonpoint source 

emissions, the EPA incorporated those 

inputs in its projections. We included 

adjustments for state fuel sulfur content 

rules for fuel oil in the Northeast. 

Projected emissions for portable fuel 

containers reflect the impact of 

projection factors required by the final 

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule 

and the EISA, including updates to 

cellulosic ethanol plants, ethanol 

transport working losses, and ethanol 

distribution vapor losses. 

The EPA developed regional 

projection factors for nonpoint oil and 

gas sources by product type based on 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 

projections to year 2018. We reflected 

criteria air pollutant (CAP) co-benefit 

reductions resulting from the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) and 

NSPS rules and Oil and Gas NSPS VOC 

controls for select source categories. 

Additional details on the projections are 

available in the Emissions Modeling 

TSD. 

C. Air Quality Modeling To Identify 

Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors 

In this section, we describe the air 

quality modeling performed to identify 

locations where we expect there to be 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the 2017 analytic future year chosen for 

this proposal. We then describe how we 

factored current monitored data into the 

identification of sites as having either 

nonattainment or maintenance concerns 

for the purposes of this rulemaking. 

These sites are used as the ‘‘receptors’’ 

for quantifying the contributions of 

emissions in upwind states to 

nonattainment and maintenance 

concerns in downwind locations. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

78 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that the EPA 

must give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

79 63 FR at 57375, 57377 (Oct. 27, 1998); 70 FR 

at 25241 (May 12, 2005). See also North Carolina, 

531 F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s 

approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR). 

80EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 135–36; see also 

76 FR 48208 at 48230–31 (August 8, 2011). 

81See 795 F.3d at 136. 

82The ozone design value at a particular 

monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual 

4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration at that site. 

In this proposed rule, the EPA is 

relying on CSAPR’s approach to identify 

separate nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in order to give 

independent effect to both the 

‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ prongs of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit’s direction in North 

Carolina.78 In its decision on remand 

from the Supreme Court, the D.C. 

Circuit confirmed that EPA’s approach 

to identifying maintenance receptors in 

CSAPR comported with the court’s prior 

instruction to give independent 

meaning to the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ prong in the good 

neighbor provision. EME Homer City II, 

795 F.3d at 136. 

In CSAPR, the EPA identified 

nonattainment receptors as those 

monitoring sites that are projected to 

have average design values that exceed 

the NAAQS. The EPA separately 

identified maintenance receptors as 

those receptors that would have 

difficulty maintaining the relevant 

NAAQS in a scenario that takes into 

account historical variability in air 

quality at that receptor. The CSAPR 

approach for identifying nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors relied only 

upon air quality model projections of 

measured design values. In CSAPR, if 

the average design value in the analysis 

year was projected to exceed the 

NAAQS, then the monitoring site is 

identified as a nonattainment receptor 

without consideration of whether the 

monitoring site is currently measuring 

‘‘clean data’’ (i.e., design values below 

the NAAQS based on the most recent 

three years of measured data). In prior 

transport rulemakings, such as the NOX

SIP Call and CAIR, the EPA defined 

nonattainment receptors as those areas 

that both currently monitor 

nonattainment and that the EPA projects 

will be in nonattainment in the future 

compliance year.79 We explained that 

we had the most confidence in our 

projections of nonattainment for those 

counties that also measure 

nonattainment for the most recent 

period of available ambient data. In 

CSAPR, we were compelled to deviate 

from this practice of incorporating 

monitored data into EPA’s evaluation of 

projected nonattainment receptors 

because the most recent monitoring data 

then available reflected large emission 

reductions from CAIR, which CSAPR 

was designed to replace. As recently 

affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, it was 

therefore reasonable for the EPA to 

decide not to compare monitored data 

reflecting CAIR emissions reductions to 

its modeling projections that instead 

excluded CAIR from its baseline.80

As the EPA is not replacing an 

existing transport program in this 

rulemaking proposal, we are proposing 

to consider current monitored data as 

part of the process for identifying 

projected nonattainment receptors for 

this rulemaking. Accordingly, in this 

rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to 

return to our prior practice of comparing 

our modeled nonattainment projections 

to current monitored air quality. For the 

purposes of this rulemaking, the EPA 

proposes to identify as nonattainment 

receptors those monitors that both 

currently measure nonattainment and 

that the EPA projects will be in 

nonattainment in 2017. 

As noted above, in CSAPR the EPA 

identified maintenance receptors as 

those receptors that would have 

difficulty maintaining the relevant 

NAAQS in a scenario that takes into 

account historical variability in air 

quality at that receptor. The variability 

in air quality was determined by 

evaluating the ‘‘maximum’’ future 

design value at each receptor based on 

a projection of the maximum measured 

design value over the relevant period. 

The EPA interprets the projected 

maximum future design value to be a 

potential future air quality outcome 

consistent with the meteorology that 

yielded maximum measured 

concentrations in the ambient data set 

analyzed for that receptor. The EPA also 

recognizes that previously experienced 

meteorological conditions (e.g., 

dominant wind direction, temperatures, 

air mass patterns) promoting ozone 

formation that led to maximum 

concentrations in the measured data 

may reoccur in the future. The 

maximum design value gives a 

reasonable projection of future air 

quality at the receptor under a scenario 

in which such conditions do, in fact, 

reoccur. The projected maximum design 

value is used to identify upwind 

emissions that, under those 

circumstances, could interfere with the 

downwind area’s ability to maintain the 

NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA assesses 

the magnitude of the maximum 

projected design value for 2017 at each 

receptor in relation to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and, where such a value 

exceeds the NAAQS, EPA determines 

that receptor to be a ‘‘maintenance’’ 

receptor for purposes of defining 

interference with maintenance in this 

proposal, consistent with the method 

used in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. 

Circuit in EME Homer City II.81 That is, 

monitoring sites with a maximum 

design value that exceeds the NAAQS 

are projected to have a maintenance 

problem in 2017. 

Consistent with the CSAPR 

methodology, monitoring sites with a 

projected maximum design value that 

exceeds the NAAQS, but with a 

projected average design value that is 

below the NAAQS, are identified as 

maintenance-only receptors. In 

addition, those sites that are currently 

measuring clean data, but are projected 

to be nonattainment based on the 

average design value and that, by 

definition, are projected to have a 

maximum design value above the 

standard are also identified as 

maintenance-only receptors. We are not 

proposing that monitored data have any 

effect on the EPA’s determination of 

maintenance receptors using the CSAPR 

method since even those receptor sites 

that are not currently monitoring 

violations are still subject to conditions 

that may allow violations to reoccur and 

therefore have future maintenance 

concerns. 

The following is a brief summary of 

the procedures for projecting future-year 

8-hour ozone average and maximum 

design values to 2017. Consistent with 

the EPA’s modeling guidance we use the 

air quality modeling results in a 

‘‘relative’’ sense to project future 

concentrations. That is, the ratios of 

future year model predictions to base 

year model predictions are used to 

adjust ambient ozone design values 82

up or down depending on the relative 

(percent) change in model predictions 

for each location. The modeling 

guidance recommends using measured 

ozone concentrations for the 5-year 

period centered on the base year as the 

air quality data starting point for future 

year projections. This average design 

value is used to dampen the effects of 

inter-annual variability in meteorology 

on ozone concentrations and to provide 

a reasonable projection of future air 

quality at the receptor under ‘‘average’’ 

conditions. Because the base year for 

this proposal is 2011, we are using the 

base period 2009–2013 ambient ozone 

design value data in order to project 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75725 

83As specified in the attainment demonstration 

modeling guidance, if there are fewer than 10 

modeled days greater than or equal to (>=) 70 ppb, 

then the threshold is lowered in 1 ppb increments 

(to as low as 60 ppb) until there are 10 days. If there 

are fewer than 5 days >= 60 ppb, then an RRF 

calculation is not completed for that site. 

84Sites with insufficient valid design values were 

not included in the calculation. In addition, sites 

with fewer than 5 days with predicted 8-hour ozone 

>= 60 ppb in 2018 were dropped from the analysis. 

85 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P to Part 50— 

Interpretation of the Primary and Secondary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. 

86Abt Associates, 2014. User’s Guide: Modeled 

Attainment Test Software. http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm. 

2017 average design values in a manner 

consistent with the modeling guidance. 

The approach for projecting future 

ozone design values involved the 

projection of an average of up to 3 

design value periods, which include the 

years 2009–2013 (design values for 

2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 2011– 

2013). The 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 

2011–2013 design values are accessible 

at www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

The average of the 3 design values 

creates a ‘‘5-year weighted average’’ 

value. The 5-year weighted average 

values were then projected to 2017. To 

project 8-hour ozone design values we 

used the 2011 base year and 2017 future 

base-case model-predicted ozone 

concentrations to calculate relative 

reduction factors (RRFs) for the location 

of each monitoring site. The RRFs were 

applied to the 2009–2013 average ozone 

design values and the individual design 

values for 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 

2011–2013 through the following steps: 

Step 1: For each monitoring site, we 

calculate the average concentration 

across the 10 days with the 10 highest 

8-hour daily maximum ozone 

predictions in the 2017 baseline 83 using 

the predictions in the nine grid cells 

that include or surround the location of 

the monitoring site. The RRF for a site 

is the ratio of the mean prediction in the 

future year to the mean prediction in the 

2011 base year. The RRFs were 

calculated on a site-by-site basis.84

Step 2: The RRF for each site is then 

multiplied by the 2009–2013 5-year 

weighted average ambient design value 

for that site, yielding an estimate of the 

future average design value at that 

particular monitoring location. 

Step 3: We calculate the maximum 

future design value by multiplying the 

RRF for each site by the three base 

periods (2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 

2011–2013) separately. The highest of 

the three future values is the projected 

maximum design value. Consistent with 

the truncation and rounding procedures 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

projected design values are truncated to 

integers in units of ppb.85

Projected design values that are 

greater than or equal to 76 ppb are 

considered to be violating the NAAQS 

in 2017. For those sites that are 

projected to be violating the NAAQS 

based on the average design values in 

2017, we examined measured design 

values for the period 2012–2014, which 

is the most recent available measured 

design values at the time of this 

proposal. As noted above, we are 

proposing to identify nonattainment 

receptors in this rulemaking as those 

sites that are violating the NAAQS 

based on current measured air quality 

and also have projected average design 

values of 76 ppb or greater. 

Maintenance-only receptors therefore 

include both (1) those sites with 

projected average design values above 

the NAAQS that are currently 

measuring clean data and (2) those sites 

with projected average design values 

below the level of the NAAQS, but with 

projected maximum design values of 76 

ppb or greater. In addition to the 

maintenance-only receptors, the 2017 

ozone nonattainment receptors are also 

maintenance receptors because the 

maximum design values for each of 

these sites is always greater than or 

equal to the average design value. The 

monitoring sites that we project to be 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors for the ozone NAAQS in the 

2017 baseline are used for assessing the 

contribution of emissions in upwind 

states to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance of ozone NAAQS as part of 

this proposal. 

Table V.C–1 contains the 2009–2013 

base period average and maximum 8- 

hour ozone design values, the 2017 

baseline average and maximum design 

values, and the 2012–2014 design 

values for the 8 sites in the eastern U.S. 

projected to be 2017 nonattainment 

receptors. Table V.C–2 contains this 

same information for the 6 maintenanceonly sites in the eastern U.S. that are 

projected nonattainment but currently 

measuring clean data. Table V.C–3 

contains this same information for the 

23 maintenance-only sites in the eastern 

U.S. that are projected to have average 

design values below the NAAQS, but 

maximum design values above the 

NAAQS. The design values for all 

monitoring sites in the U.S. are 

provided in docket item EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0500–0006. Additional 

details on the approach for projecting 

average and maximum design values are 

provided in the modeling guidance, 

Model Attainment Test Software 86

documentation, and the AQM TSD. The 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

proposed methods for determining 

projected nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. 

TABLE V.C–1—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 

2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. 

[Nonattainment receptors] 

Monitor ID State County 

Average 

design value 

2009–2013 

Maximum 

design value 

2009–2013 

Average 

design value 

2017 

Maximum 

design value 

2017 

2012–2014 

design value 

90013007 ............ Connecticut ........ Fairfield ............... 84.3 89.0 77.1 81.4 84.0 

90019003 ............ Connecticut ........ Fairfield ............... 83.7 87.0 78.0 81.1 85.0 

90099002 ............ Connecticut ........ New Haven ......... 85.7 89.0 77.2 80.2 81.0 

480391004 .......... Texas ................. Brazoria .............. 88.0 89.0 81.4 82.3 80.0 

481210034 .......... Texas ................. Denton ................ 84.3 87.0 76.9 79.4 81.0 

484392003 .......... Texas ................. Tarrant ................ 87.3 90.0 79.6 82.1 77.0 

484393009 .......... Texas ................. Tarrant ................ 86.0 86.0 78.6 78.6 80.0 

551170006 .......... Wisconsin ........... Sheboygan ......... 84.3 87.0 77.0 79.4 81.0 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

87As part of this technique, ozone formed from 

reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with 

anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the 

anthropogenic emissions. 

TABLE V.C–2—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 

2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. THAT ARE PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT BUT CURRENTLY MEASURING CLEAN DATA

[Maintenance-only receptors] 

Monitor ID State County 

Average 

design value 

2009–2013 

Maximum 

design value 

2009–2013 

Average 

design value 

2017 

Maximum 

design value 

2017 

2012–2014 

design value 

240251001 ........ Maryland ........... Harford .............. 90.0 93.0 81.3 84.0 75.0 

360850067 ........ New York .......... Richmond .......... 81.3 83.0 76.3 77.8 73.0 

361030002 ........ New York .......... Suffolk ............... 83.3 85.0 79.2 80.8 73.0 

390610006 ........ Ohio .................. Hamilton ............ 82.0 85.0 76.3 79.1 75.0 

482011034 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 81.0 82.0 76.8 77.8 72.0 

482011039 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 82.0 84.0 78.2 80.2 72.0 

TABLE V.C–3—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012– 

2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. BASED ON THE CSAPR 

METHODOLOGY

[Maintenance-only receptors] 

Monitor ID State County 

Average 

design value 

2009–2013 

Maximum 

design value 

2009–2013 

Average 

design value 

2017 

Maximum 

design value 

2017 

2012–2014 

design value 

90010017 .......... Connecticut ....... Fairfield ............. 80.3 83.0 75.8 78.4 82.0 

211110067 ........ Kentucky ........... Jefferson ........... 82.0 85.0 75.8 78.6 Incomplete Data 

211850004 ........ Kentucky ........... Oldham ............. 82.0 86.0 73.7 77.3 74.0 

240053001 ........ Maryland ........... Baltimore ........... 80.7 84.0 73.2 76.2 72.0 

260050003 ........ Michigan ............ Allegan .............. 82.7 86.0 75.5 78.5 83.0 

261630019 ........ Michigan ............ Wayne ............... 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.2 74.0 

340071001 ........ New Jersey ....... Camden ............ 82.7 87.0 74.2 78.1 76.0 

340150002 ........ New Jersey ....... Gloucester ......... 84.3 87.0 75.1 77.5 76.0 

340230011 ........ New Jersey ....... Middlesex .......... 81.3 85.0 73.0 76.3 74.0 

340290006 ........ New Jersey ....... Ocean ............... 82.0 85.0 73.9 76.6 75.0 

360810124 ........ New York .......... Queens ............. 78.0 80.0 75.7 77.6 72.0 

420031005 ........ Pennsylvania ..... Allegheny .......... 80.7 82.0 75.3 76.5 77.0 

421010024 ........ Pennsylvania ..... Philadelphia ...... 83.3 87.0 75.1 78.4 75.0 

480850005 ........ Texas ................ Collin ................. 82.7 84.0 74.9 76.0 78.0 

481130069 ........ Texas ................ Dallas ................ 79.7 84.0 74.0 78.0 78.0 

481130075 ........ Texas ................ Dallas ................ 82.0 83.0 75.8 76.7 77.0 

481211032 ........ Texas ................ Denton .............. 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3 79.0 

482010024 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 80.3 83.0 75.9 78.5 72.0 

482010026 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 77.3 80.0 73.5 76.1 67.0 

482010055 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 81.3 83.0 75.4 77.0 75.0 

482011050 ........ Texas ................ Harris ................ 78.3 80.0 74.6 76.2 72.0 

484390075 ........ Texas ................ Tarrant .............. 82.0 83.0 75.5 76.4 79.0 

484393011 ........ Texas ................ Tarrant .............. 80.7 83.0 74.5 76.6 75.0 

D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind 

States 

1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify 

Upwind State Contributions 

This section documents the 

procedures the EPA used to quantify the 

impact of emissions from specific 

upwind states on 2017 8-hour design 

values for identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. The EPA used CAMx 

photochemical source apportionment 

modeling to quantify the impact of 

emissions in specific upwind states on 

downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors for 8-hour ozone. 

CAMx employs enhanced source 

apportionment techniques that track the 

formation and transport of ozone from 

specific emissions sources and 

calculates the contribution of sources 

and precursors to ozone for individual 

receptor locations. The strength of the 

photochemical model source 

apportionment technique is that all 

modeled ozone at a given receptor 

location in the modeling domain is 

tracked back to specific sources of 

emissions and boundary conditions to 

fully characterize culpable sources. 

The EPA performed nationwide, statelevel ozone source apportionment 

modeling using the CAMx Ozone 

Source Apportionment Technology/

Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability 

Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 87 to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 

baseline NOX and VOC emissions from 

all sources in each state to projected 

2017 ozone concentrations at air quality 

monitoring sites. In the source 

apportionment model run, we tracked 

the ozone formed from each of the 

following contribution categories (i.e., 

‘‘tags’’): 

• States—anthropogenic NOX and 

VOC emissions from each state tracked 

individually (emissions from all 

anthropogenic sectors in a given state 

were combined); 

• Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC 

emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by 

state); 

• Boundary Concentrations— 

concentrations transported into the 

modeling domain; 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75727 

88Contributions from anthropogenic emissions 

under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ chemical 

regimes were combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic 

emissions in each state. 

• Tribes—the emissions from those 

tribal lands for which we have point 

source inventory data in the 2011 NEI 

(we did not model the contributions 

from individual tribes); 

• Canada and Mexico— 

anthropogenic emissions from sources 

in the portions of Canada and Mexico 

included in the modeling domain (we 

did not model the contributions from 

Canada and Mexico separately); 

• Fires—combined emissions from 

wild and prescribed fires domain-wide 

(i.e., not by state); and 

• Offshore—combined emissions 

from offshore marine vessels and 

offshore drilling platforms. 

The contribution modeling provided 

contributions to ozone from 

anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions 

in each state, individually. The 

contributions to ozone from chemical 

reactions between biogenic NOX and 

VOC emissions were modeled and 

assigned to the ‘‘biogenic’’ category. The 

contributions from wild fire and 

prescribed fire NOX and VOC emissions 

were modeled and assigned to the 

‘‘fires’’ category. That is, the 

contributions from the ‘‘biogenic’’ and 

‘‘fires’’ categories are not assigned to 

individual states nor are they included 

in the state contributions. 

The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run 

was performed for the period May 1 

through September 30 using the 

projected 2017 baseline emissions and 

2011 meteorology for this time period. 

The hourly contributions 88 from each 

tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour 

average contributions corresponding to 

the time period of the 8-hour daily 

maximum concentration on each day in 

the 2017 model simulation. This step 

was performed for those model grid 

cells containing monitoring sites in 

order to obtain 8-hour average 

contributions for each day at the 

location of each site. The modelpredicted contributions were then 

applied in a relative sense to quantify 

the contributions to the 2017 average 

design value at each site. The resulting 

2017 contributions from each tag to each 

monitoring site in the eastern and 

western U.S. along with additional 

details on the source apportionment 

modeling and the procedures for 

calculating contributions can be found 

in the AQM TSD. The EPA is seeking 

comment on the methodologies for 

calculating ozone contributions. 

The average contribution metric is 

intended to provide a reasonable 

representation of the contribution from 

individual states to the projected 2017 

design value, based on modeled 

transport patterns and other 

meteorological conditions generally 

associated with modeled high ozone 

concentrations at the receptor. An 

average contribution metric constructed 

in this manner is beneficial since the 

magnitude of the contributions is 

directly related to the magnitude of the 

design value at each site. 

The largest contribution from each 

state in the East to 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment receptors in downwind 

states is provided in Table V.D–1. The 

largest contribution from each state in 

the East to 8-hour ozone maintenanceonly receptors in downwind states is 

also provided in Table V.D–1. 

TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS

FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S. 

Upwind state 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

receptors 

for ozone 

(ppb) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

maintenance 

receptors 

for ozone 

(ppb) 

AL ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.79 1.28 

AR ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.98 2.15 

CT ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00 0.46 

DE ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.37 2.23 

DC ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.06 0.73 

FL ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.54 0.72 

GA ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.47 0.58 

IL .................................................................................................................................................................. 17.48 23.17 

IN ................................................................................................................................................................. 6.24 14.95 

IA .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.61 0.85 

KS ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.80 1.03 

KY ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.75 11.17 

LA ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.09 4.23 

ME ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.00 0.08 

MD ............................................................................................................................................................... 2.07 7.11 

MA ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.10 0.37 

MI ................................................................................................................................................................. 2.69 1.79 

MN ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.40 0.47 

MS ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.78 1.48 

MO ............................................................................................................................................................... 1.63 3.69 

NE ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.24 0.36 

NH ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.02 0.07 

NJ ................................................................................................................................................................. 8.84 12.38 

NY ................................................................................................................................................................ 16.96 17.21 

NC ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.55 0.93 

ND ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.11 0.28 

OH ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.18 7.92 

OK ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.70 2.46 

PA ................................................................................................................................................................ 9.39 15.93 

RI ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.02 0.08 

SC ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.16 0.21 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

89As discussed in section III this assessment 

shows that there are problem receptors in the West 

where western states contribute amounts greater 

than or equal to the screening threshold used to 

evaluate eastern states (i.e., 1 percent of the 

NAAQS). However, there may be additional criteria 

to evaluate regarding transported air pollution in 

the West and upwind state obligations. The EPA 

proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states, 

but seeks comment on whether to include western 

states in this rule. 

TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS

FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S.—Continued 

Upwind state 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

nonattainment 

receptors 

for ozone 

(ppb) 

Largest downwind 

contribution to 

maintenance 

receptors 

for ozone 

(ppb) 

SD ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.08 0.12 

TN ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.51 1.67 

TX ................................................................................................................................................................ 2.44 2.95 

VT ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.01 0.05 

VA ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.87 5.29 

WV ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.95 3.11 

WI ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.34 2.59 

2. Application of Screening Threshold 

The EPA then evaluated the 

magnitude of the contributions from 

each upwind state to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. In this proposal, the EPA uses 

an air quality screening threshold to 

identify upwind states that contribute to 

downwind ozone concentrations in 

amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to 

these to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors. 

As discussed above in section III, the 

EPA is proposing to establish the air 

quality screening threshold calculated 

as one percent of the NAAQS. 

Specifically for this rule, we propose 

calculating an 8-hour ozone value for 

this air quality threshold of 0.75 ppb as 

the quantification of one percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

States in the East 89 whose 

contributions to a specific receptor meet 

or exceed the screening threshold are 

considered linked to that receptor; those 

states’ ozone contributions and 

emissions (and available emission 

reductions) are analyzed further, as 

described in section VI, to determine 

whether and what emissions reductions 

might be required from each state. 

States in the East whose contributions 

are below the threshold are not included 

in the proposed rule and are considered 

to make insignificant contributions to 

projected downwind air quality 

problems. However, for eastern states 

for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs 

in this action, the EPA notes that 

updates to the modeling for the final 

rule could change the analysis as to 

which states have contributions that 

meet or exceed the screening threshold. 

In the event that air quality modeling 

conducted for the final rule 

demonstrates that states that contribute 

amounts below the threshold in the 

proposal are projected to contribute 

amounts greater than or equal to the 

threshold in the final rule modeling, the 

EPA instead proposes to finalize revised 

budgets (presented with this rulemaking 

for comment) for whichever of those 

states may be identified as linked to 

such air quality problems. The EPA has 

calculated emissions budgets for all 

eastern states that we are proposing to 

apply to those states if, and only if, the 

final rule air quality modeling identifies 

a linkage as just described. These 

budgets are available in the Ozone 

Transport Policy Analysis TSD. 

Based on the maximum downwind 

contributions in Table V.D–1, the 

following states contribute at or above 

the 0.75 ppb threshold to downwind 

nonattainment receptors: Alabama, 

Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. Based on the maximum 

downwind contributions in Table 

V.D–1, the following states contribute at 

or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to 

downwind maintenance-only receptors: 

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

The linkages between each upwind state 

and downwind nonattainment receptors 

and maintenance-only receptors in the 

eastern U.S. are provided in Table 

V.D–2 and Table V.D–3, respectively. 

TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN

U.S. 

Upwind state Downwind nonattainment receptors 

AL ...................... Tarrant Co., TX (484392003). 

AR ...................... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009). 

IL ........................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

IN ....................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

KS ...................... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

KY ...................... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

LA ...................... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009); 

Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

MD ..................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). 

MI ....................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI 

(551170006). 

MS ..................... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004). 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75729 

TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN

U.S.—Continued 

Upwind state Downwind nonattainment receptors 

MO ..................... Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

NJ ...................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). 

NY ...................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). 

OH ..................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI 

(551170006). 

OK ..................... Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

PA ...................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). 

TX ...................... Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006). 

VA ...................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002). 

WV ..................... Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003). 

TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE

EASTERN U.S. 

Upwind state Downwind maintenance receptors 

AL ............................. Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010055). 

AR ............................ Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); 

Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050); 

Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). 

DE ............................ Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Philadelphia Co., PA 

(421010024). 

IL .............................. Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI 

(261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens 

Co., NY (360810124); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); 

Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011039). 

IN .............................. Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD 

(240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester 

Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); 

Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA 

(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

IA .............................. Allegan Co., MI (260050003). 

KS ............................. Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). 

KY ............................. Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ 

(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Hamilton 

Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

LA ............................. Collin Co., TX (480850005); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); Denton Co., TX (481211032); 

Harris Co., TX (482010024); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011034); 

Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). 

MD ............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ 

(340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

MI ............................. Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Harford Co., MD 

(240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens 

Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); 

Allegheny Co., PA (420031005). 

MS ............................ Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039). 

MO ............................ Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Hamilton Co., OH 

(390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX 

(482011050). 

NJ ............................. Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY 

(361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

NY ............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ 

(340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006). 

NC ............................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001). 

OH ............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD 

(240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester 

Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); 

Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA 

(421010024). 

OK ............................ Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); 

Denton Co., TX (481211032); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011034); Harris Co., TX (482011039); 

Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011). 

PA ............................. Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ 

(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens 

Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002). 

TN ............................. Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE

EASTERN U.S.—Continued 

Upwind state Downwind maintenance receptors 

TX ............................. Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ 

(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond 

Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); 

Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

VA ............................. Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Gloucester Co., NJ 

(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond 

Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

WV ............................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ 

(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond 

Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); 

Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024). 

WI ............................. Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019). 

As discussed previously, after the 

receptor and contribution analyses for 

this proposal were underway, the EPA 

released an updated IPM base case, 

version 5.15, and the final CPP. In order 

to reflect all on-the-books policies as 

well as the most current power sector 

modeling data, the EPA performed an 

assessment to reflect inclusion of IPM 

5.15 with the CPP in an ‘‘adjusted’’ base 

case for this proposal. All references 

below to the ‘‘adjusted base case’’ refer 

to the 2017 air quality modeling base 

case which has been adjusted to account 

for the revised IPM 5.15 with CPP 

emissions. This assessment method 

relied on the EPA’s air quality modeling 

contribution data as well as projected 

ozone concentrations from an 

illustrative EGU NOX mitigation 

scenario. For more information about 

these methods, refer to the Ozone 

Transport Policy Analysis Technical 

Support Document. 

This assessment shows that two 

receptors—Hamilton County Ohio 

(390610006) and Richmond County 

New York (360850067)—that were 

projected to have average design values 

exceeding the NAAQS in the modeled 

2017 baseline, are expected to have 

average design values below the 

NAAQS with the adjusted base case. 

However, these receptors are still 

expected to have maximum design 

values exceeding the NAAQS with the 

adjusted base case. Because both of 

these receptors are also considered 

maintenance receptors for the purposes 

of this proposal, their status as 

identified air quality concerns and the 

status of states linked to these receptors 

is unchanged by the adjusted base case. 

This assessment also shows that four 

receptors—Allegheny County 

Pennsylvania (420031005), Collin 

County Texas (480850005), Wayne 

County Michigan (261630019), and 

Middlesex County New Jersey 

(340230011)—that were projected to 

have maximum design values exceeding 

the NAAQS in the modeled base case, 

are expected to have maximum design 

values below the NAAQS with the 

adjusted base case. With the adjusted 

base case, these sites would not be 

considered nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors for the purposes 

of this proposal. However, because no 

state is linked solely to any one of these 

sites, changing the status of these 

receptors does not impact the scope of 

states linked to downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

for this proposal. 

In addition to evaluating the status of 

downwind receptors identified for this 

proposal, the EPA evaluated whether 

the adjusted base case would reduce 

ozone contributions from upwind states 

to the extent that a previously linked 

state would have a maximum 

contribution less than the 1% threshold. 

This assessment shows that in the 

adjusted base case, all states are 

expected to remain linked (i.e., 

contribute greater than or equal to 1% 

of the NAAQS) to at least one 

downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor. Therefore, using 

the adjusted base case for this proposal 

does not impact the scope of states 

linked to downwind nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors relative to the 

modeled base case. 

The analyses that EPA uses in section 

VI to quantify EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets for this proposal also 

rely on the adjusted base case. 

The EPA seeks comment on its 

assessment of the impacts of relying on 

the adjusted base case for these 

purposes, and on EPA’s intention to rely 

on full air quality and IPM modeling of 

the adjusted base case to identify 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and to inform the analysis of 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU 

NOX Reduction Potential To Reduce 

Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2008 

NAAQS 

A. Introduction 

This section describes the EPA’s 

proposed quantification of near-term 

EGU NOX reductions that are necessary 

to fulfill (at least in part) the Clean Air 

Act requirement to address interstate 

ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS. 

This section also describes the EPA’s 

proposal to translate these reductions 

into EGU NOX ozone-season emissions 

budgets. Section VII describes the EPA’s 

proposal to implement these proposed 

emissions budgets via updates to the 

existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

trading program. 

As described in section V, the EPA 

separately identified nonattainment 

receptors and maintenance receptors. 

The EPA proposes to apply a single 

approach for quantifying an upwind 

state’s ozone transport obligation to both 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. It is reasonable to apply the 

same approach to quantify upwind-state 

reduction requirements with respect to 

both nonattainment and maintenance 

because the structure of the problems is 

the same—emissions from sources in 

upwind states contributing to 

downwind ozone concentrations that 

put the downwind receptor at risk of 

nonattainment with respect to the EPA’s 

clean air standards. Moreover, as all 

nonattainment receptors are also 

maintenance receptors because the 

maximum design value will always be 

equal to or exceed the average design 

value, it is reasonable to control all sites 

consistent with the level of control 

necessary to reduce maintenance 

concerns. 

As described in section III of this 

preamble, due to the impending July 

2018 moderate area attainment date, the 

EPA is proposing, as a first step, to 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75731 

90This assessment is available in the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD. 

quantify near-term EGU NOX ozoneseason emission reductions to reduce 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. For this section, this 

means that the EPA is proposing to 

quantify ozone season EGU NOX

reductions achievable for the 2017 

ozone season (i.e., the last full ozone 

season prior to the July 2018 attainment 

date). 

The EPA’s assessment of upwind state 

obligations in this proposal reflects 

application of a multi-factor test that 

considers cost, available emission 

reductions, and air quality. This is the 

same multi-factor test used in the 

original CSAPR. This multi-factor test 

considers increasing levels of uniform 

control stringency, where each level is 

represented by cost, to determine the 

appropriate magnitude of pollution 

reduction that would reduce the 

impacts of interstate transport on 

downwind states and to apportion that 

reduction responsibility among 

collectively-contributing upwind states. 

This approach to quantifying upwind 

state emission reduction obligations was 

reviewed by the Supreme Court in EPA 

v. EME Homer City Generation, which 

held that using such an approach to 

apportion reduction responsibilities 

among upwind states that are 

collectively responsible for downwind 

air quality impacts ‘‘is an efficient and 

equitable solution to the allocation 

problem the Good Neighbor Provision 

requires the Agency to address.’’ 134 

S.Ct. at 1607. 

There are three steps in developing 

and applying the multi-factor test to 

quantify upwind state emission 

reductions as to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS: (1) Identify NOX mitigation 

strategies, focusing on those that can be 

in place for the 2017 ozone season; (2) 

develop uniform EGU NOX cost 

thresholds based on these NOx 

mitigation strategies; (3) assess EGU 

NOX mitigation potential that is 

achievable for 2017 and assess 

corresponding air quality improvements 

resulting from the application of each 

uniform cost threshold, including to 

check for over-control. This multi-factor 

evaluation informs the EPA’s 

determination of appropriate ozone 

season EGU NOX reductions necessary 

to reduce significant contribution to 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for the proposed 2017 compliance year. 

These steps are discussed in further 

detail in the following sections. 

This proposal evaluates a range of 

uniform EGU NOX costs from $500 per 

ton to $10,000 per ton. This range, and 

the intermediate uniform NOX cost 

thresholds evaluated within that range, 

were selected based on the cost 

thresholds at which various EGU NOX

control technologies are widely 

available, the use of certain EGU NOX

cost thresholds in previous rules to 

address ozone transport, and EGU NOX

cost thresholds incorporated into state 

requirements to address ozone 

nonattainment. 

In this proposal, the EPA evaluated 

the emission reduction potential in each 

upwind state at each uniform NOX cost 

threshold using the adjusted IPM base 

case 5.15. In this case, the EPA limited 

IPM’s evaluation of NOX mitigation 

strategies to those that can be 

implemented for the 2017 ozone season, 

which is the proposed compliance 

timing for this rulemaking, as described 

in section VI.B below. 

B. NOX Mitigation Strategies 

The following sub-sections describe 

the EPA’s assessment of EGU and nonEGU point source NOX mitigation 

strategies. For more details on these 

assessments, refer to the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD and the 

Update to Non-EGU Emission 

Reductions Cost and Potential for States 

with Potentially Significant 

Contributions under the 2008 Ozone 

Standard TSD in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies 

In developing this proposed rule, the 

EPA considered all widely used EGU 

NOX control strategies: Fully operating 

existing Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR)—including 

optimizing NOX removal by existing, 

operational SCRs and SNCRs and 

turning on and optimizing existing idled 

SCRs and SNCRs; installation of (or 

upgrading to) state-of-the-art NOX

combustion controls; shifting generation 

to units with lower NOX emission rates 

within the same state; and installing 

new SCRs and SNCRs. Although this 

proposal does not require or impose any 

specific technology standards to 

demonstrate compliance, EPA 

determined that certain technologies 

would be available by the 2017 

timeframe when assessing potential 

reductions in the region. 

For the reasons explained below, the 

EPA determined that the power sector 

could implement all of these NOX

mitigation strategies, except installation 

of new SCRs or SNCRs, between 

finalization of this proposal in summer 

of 2016 and the 2017 ozone season. As 

to the installation of new SCRs or 

SNCRs, the amount of time from 

contract award through commissioning 

for retrofit with new SCR or SNCR 

exceeds 18 and 12 months, respectively. 

For both technologies, conceptual 

design, permitting, financing, and bid 

review require additional time. It would 

therefore not be feasible to retrofit new 

SCR or SNCR to achieve EGU NOX

reductions in the 2017 ozone season. 

See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD 

for discussion of feasibility of EGU NOX

controls for the 2017 ozone season. 

Therefore, the EPA analyzed the 

remaining strategies for purposes of 

quantifying upwind state obligations in 

this rule. Exclusion of new SCR and 

SNCR installation from this analysis 

reflects a determination only that these 

strategies are infeasible by 2017, not a 

determination that they are infeasible or 

inappropriate for consideration of costeffective NOX reduction potential over a 

longer timeframe. The EPA requests 

comment on what EGU NOX mitigation 

strategies are feasible for the 2017 ozone 

season. 

a. Fully Operating Existing SCRs and 

SNCRs 

Fully operating existing SCR and 

SNCRs can significantly reduce EGU 

NOX emissions quickly, using 

investments that have already been 

made. SCRs can achieve up to 90 

percent reduction in EGU NOX (with 

sufficient installed catalyst), while 

SNCRs can achieve 20–30 percent 

reduction in EGU NOX, beyond the 

reductions from combustion controls. 

These controls are in widespread use 

across the U.S. power sector. In the east, 

approximately 64 percent of coal-fired 

EGU capacity and 75 percent of natural 

gas combined cycle (NGCC) EGU 

capacity is equipped with SCR or SNCR. 

Recent power sector data reveal that 

some SCR and SNCR controls are being 

underused.90 In some cases, controls are 

not fully operating (i.e., the controls 

could be operated at a higher NOX

removal rate). In other cases, controls 

have been idled for years. Fully 

operating existing SCR and SNCR would 

be a cost-effective and readily available 

approach for EGUs to reduce NOX

emissions and the EPA evaluated this 

NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying 

EGU NOX obligations for this proposal. 

For existing SCRs and SNCRs that are 

operating to some extent, but not at their 

full pollution control capability, the 

EPA’s analysis determined that $500 per 

ton represents the costs reflective of 

fully operating these systems. Because 

the SCR or SNCR is already installed 

and is at least to some extent operating, 

the EPA assumes that additional reagent 

(i.e., ammonia or urea) is the only 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

91Schnitkey, G. ‘‘Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices and 

2015 Planting Decisions.’’ farmdoc daily (4):195, 

Department of Agricultural and Consumer 

Economics, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, October 9, 2014. 

Permalink URL http://farmdocvdaily.illinois.edu/ 

2014/10/nitrogen-fertilizer-prices-and-2015- 

planting-decisions.html. 

92This assessment is available in the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD. 

93This assessment is available in the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD. 

94 ‘‘Installation Timing for Low NOX Burners 

(LNB)’’, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491– 

0051. 

significant cost required for full 

operation. We observe that urea can cost 

on the order of $300 per metric ton. The 

cost for anhydrous ammonia is around 

$750 per ton.91 In our assessment, we 

assume that a 50 percent solution is 

used in removing an equivalent amount 

of NOX. Thus, we estimate that 

sufficient reagent could be purchased at 

a cost of $500 per ton of NOX removed 

to achieve full operation for most SCRs 

and SNCRs. For more details on this 

assessment, refer to the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket 

for this proposed rule. The proposal 

seeks comment on this assessment. 

The operational difference between 

not fully operating and fully operating 

existing SCRs and SNCRs is increasing 

reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea) flow rate 

and ensuring sufficient reagent exists to 

sustain higher flow operations. 

Therefore, increasing NOX removal from 

these controls can be implemented by 

procuring more reagent. Stocking-up 

additional reagent for sustaining 

increased NOX removal could be done 

in a one or two weeks.92

For existing SCRs and SNCRs that 

have been idled for years, unit operators 

may need to restart payment of some 

fixed and variable costs associated with 

that control. Fixed and variable costs 

include labor, maintenance and repair, 

reagent, parasitic load, and ammonia or 

urea. As further detailed in the EGU 

NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD, which is 

found in the docket for this proposed 

rule, the EPA performed an in-depth 

cost assessment for all coal-fired units 

with SCRs, finding that 90 percent of 

the units had total SCR operation costs 

of $1,300 per ton of NOX removed, or 

less. 

Based on this assessment, the EPA 

proposes that turning on and fully 

operating idled SCRs is widely available 

at a uniform cost of $1,300 per ton of 

NOX removed. For more details on this 

assessment, refer to the EGU NOX

Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket 

for this proposed rule. The proposal 

seeks comment on this assessment. 

The EPA performed a similar 

assessment for fully operating existing 

idled SNCR systems, finding that the 

majority of the total fixed and variable 

operating cost for SNCR is related to the 

cost of the reagent used (e.g., ammonia 

or urea) and that the resulting cost per 

ton of NOX reduction is sensitive to the 

NOX rate of the unit prior to SNCR 

operation. Based on the results of this 

analysis, and in order to represent a 

broad range of unit-level NOX rates 

before SNCR operation, the EPA 

proposes that turning on and fully 

operating idled SNCRs is widely 

available at a uniform cost of $3,400 per 

ton of NOX removed. For more details 

on this assessment, refer to the EGU 

NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The 

proposal seeks comment on this 

assessment and on higher cost 

thresholds that would require some 

installation of new SCRs/SNCRs and the 

appropriate timetable or phase-in 

needed to accommodate those 

technologies. 

The EPA also evaluated the feasibility 

of turning on idled SCR and SNCR for 

the 2017 ozone season. Based on past 

practice and the possible effort to restart 

the controls (e.g., stockpiling reagent, 

bringing the system out of protective 

lay-up, performing inspections, etc.), 

returning these idled controls to 

operation should be available in equal 

to or less than 3 months.93 The proposal 

seeks comment on this assessment. 

b. State-of-the-Art NOX Combustion 

Controls 

State-of-the-art combustion controls 

such as low-NOX burners (LNB) and/or 

over-fire air (OFA) are cost-effective, can 

be installed quickly, and can 

significantly reduce EGU NOX

emissions. Ninety-nine percent of coalfired EGU capacity in the East is 

equipped with some form of combustion 

control. Combustion controls alone can 

achieve NOX emission rates of 0.15 to 

0.50 lb/mmBtu. Once installed, 

combustion controls reduce NOX

emissions at all times of EGU operation. 

State-of-the-art combustion controls 

would be a cost-effective, timely, and 

readily available approach for EGUs to 

reduce NOX emissions and the EPA 

included this NOX mitigation strategy in 

quantifying EGU NOX reductions for 

this proposal. 

The cost of state-of-the-art combustion 

controls per ton of NOX reduced is 

dependent on the combustion control 

type and unit type. We estimate the cost 

per ton of state-of-the-art combustion 

controls to be $500 per ton to $1,200 per 

ton of NOX removed. To be 

conservative, the EPA proposes that 

installation of (or upgrading to) state-ofthe-art NOX combustion controls is 

widely available at $1,300 per ton of 

NOX removed. 

As described in CSAPR the EPA has 

observed that upgrade, replacement, or 

installation of combustion controls has 

been demonstrated to be achievable 

within the timeframe provided for by 

this rulemaking and its compliance 

dates.94 The EPA revisited this analysis 

with data specific to this proposal and 

proposes that a 2017 compliance 

timeframe is feasible for this EGU NOX

mitigation strategy. These controls are 

fully proven, widely used, and with a 

reasonable effort can be procured, 

designed, installed, tested and be in 

operation on any coal-steam EGU 

consistent with the compliance 

timeframe provided for this rulemaking. 

The EPA proposes that this will be 

feasible for the 2017 ozone season. The 

proposal seeks comment on additional 

EGU NOx mitigation strategies that may 

be feasible for the 2017 ozone season. 

For more details on this assessment, 

refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation 

Strategies TSD in the docket for this 

proposed rule. The proposal seeks 

comment on this assessment. 

c. Shifting Generation to Lower NOXEmitting EGUs 

Shifting generation to lower NOXemitting EGUs, similar to operating 

existing post-combustion controls, uses 

investments that have already been 

made, can be done quickly, and can 

significantly reduce EGU NOX

emissions. 

Since CSAPR was promulgated, 

electricity generation has trended 

toward lower NOX-emitting generation 

due to market conditions (e.g., low 

natural gas prices) and state and federal 

environmental policies. For example, 

new NGCC facilities, which represented 

45% of new 2014 capacity, can achieve 

NOX emission rates of 0.0095 lb/mmBtu, 

compared to existing coal steam 

facilities, which emitted at an average 

rate across the 23 states included in this 

proposal of 0.18 lbs/mmBtu of NOX in 

2014. This substantial difference in NOX

emission performance between existing 

coal steam and new NGCC generation is 

due both to higher nitrogen content in 

coal compared to natural gas, as well as 

to the substantially lower generating 

efficiency of steam combustion 

technology compared to combined cycle 

combustion technology. Shifting 

generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs 

would be a cost-effective, timely, and 

readily available approach for EGUs to 

reduce NOX emissions and the EPA 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75733 

95Additionally, the EPA notes that, as discussed 

in more detail below, no identified air quality 

problems were resolved at the $500 per ton cost 

threshold. Accordingly, it would not be practical for 

the EPA to evaluate emission reductions achieved 

at cost thresholds below $500 per ton. 

included this NOX mitigation strategy in 

quantifying EGU NOX obligations for 

this proposal. 

Shifting generation to lower NOXemitting EGUs occurs on a continuum 

in response to economic factors such as 

fuel costs and uniform NOX cost 

thresholds, including those evaluated 

for this proposal (i.e., relatively lower 

uniform NOX cost thresholds 

incentivize relatively fewer EGU NOX

reductions resulting from shifting 

generation, while relatively higher 

uniform NOX cost thresholds encourage 

more EGU NOX reductions driven by 

shifting generation). As a result, the EPA 

quantified reduction potential from this 

EGU NOX mitigation strategy at each 

cost level identified that represents the 

availability of other pollution control 

measures evaluated in our assessment of 

uniform NOX cost thresholds described 

in section VI.C. 

In this analysis, the EPA assumed 

shifting generation to units with lower 

NOX emission rates could occur within 

the same state by the near-term 2017 

implementation timing for this 

proposed rule when assessing state 

emission reduction potential for 

emissions budget purposes. This 

conservative approach does not capture 

emission reductions that would occur if 

generation was shifted more broadly 

among units in different states, which 

the EPA believes is feasible over time 

but which may be subject to out-of-merit 

order dispatch constraints in the near 

term. Limiting such generation shifting 

potential to units within each state is 

not a reflection of how generation 

shifting works in practice (given that the 

grid crosses state boundaries); instead, it 

is an analytic proxy designed to respect 

the feasibility of near-term generation 

shifting in light of these potential nearterm out-of-merit order dispatch 

constraints. The EPA seeks comment on 

this assessment and on this limitation in 

quantifying EGU NOX reduction 

potential for the 2017 ozone season. 

2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies 

The EPA is not proposing to address 

non-EGU emission reductions in its 

efforts to reduce interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 

this time. Compared to EGUs, there are 

relatively more non-EGU point sources 

and these sources on average are smaller 

than EGUs. The implication of these 

fleet characteristics is that there are 

more individual sources to control and 

there are relatively fewer emission 

reductions available from each source. 

Given the proposed 2017 

implementation timing for this 

rulemaking, we are uncertain that 

significant aggregate NOX mitigation is 

achievable from non-EGU point sources 

for 2017. Moreover, there is greater 

uncertainty in the EPA’s assessment of 

non-EGU point-source NOX mitigation 

potential (see below). The EPA requests 

comment on these issues, including 

how non-EGU reductions should be 

addressed and considered in fulfilling 

upwind states’ good neighbor 

obligations under the 2008 ozone 

standard in the future, as the control of 

non-EGUs may be a necessary part of 

addressing states’ full transport 

obligation. States can always choose to 

reduce non-EGU emissions via good 

neighbor SIPs. 

The EPA has evaluated the potential 

for ozone season NOX reductions from 

non-EGU sources. A detailed discussion 

of this assessment is provided in the 

Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Potential 

TSD, located in the docket for this 

proposed rule. This TSD discusses nonEGU source category emissions, EPA 

tools for estimating emission reductions 

from non-EGU categories, and efforts, to 

date, to review and refine our estimates 

for certain states. In addition, the TSD 

contains brief discussions of available 

controls, costs, and potential emission 

reductions for a few specific source 

categories. The EPA views this non-EGU 

assessment as an initial step in future 

efforts to evaluate non-EGU categories 

that may be necessary to fully quantify 

upwind states’ significant contribution 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance. The EPA seeks comment 

on its assessment that non-EGU controls 

are not feasible by the 2017 ozoneseason. It also seeks comment on its 

broader non-EGU NOX mitigation 

assessment and the availability of nonEGU NOX emission reductions to 

mitigate interstate ozone transport in 

years following 2017. 

Although EPA did not find non-EGU 

reductions feasible by 2017 in this 

proposal, it is taking comment on that 

assessment. Future EPA rulemakings or 

guidance could revisit the potential for 

reductions from non-EGU sources. 

Under such a scenario, EPA could use 

a similar approach of identifying 

appropriate cost thresholds for nonEGUs and EGUs alike, and then identify 

potential emission reductions and 

corresponding emission budgets. Under 

this scenario, an emission budget could 

be established for all covered sources 

(e.g., EGUs and non-EGUs alike) with 

fungible allowances. EPA is taking 

comment on the potential to combine 

EGUs and non-EGUs into a single 

trading program to resolve the 

remaining non-attainment and 

maintenance issues at a later date. 

C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for 

Assessment 

As discussed above, the multi-factor 

test used here considers increasing 

levels of uniform control stringency, 

where each level is represented by cost, 

in combination with consideration of 

NOX reduction potential and 

corresponding air quality 

improvements. To determine which cost 

thresholds to use to assess upwind state 

NOX mitigation potential, the EPA 

evaluated EGU NOX control costs that 

represent the thresholds at which 

various control technologies are widely 

available (described previously in 

section VI.B), the use of certain cost 

thresholds in previous rules to address 

ozone transport, and cost thresholds 

incorporated into state requirements to 

address ozone nonattainment. 

The EPA began by determining the 

appropriate range of costs to evaluate. 

The lower end of the range is informed 

by a confluence of considerations. In 

CSAPR, $500 per ton was the EGU NOX

cost threshold relied upon to partially 

address ozone transport for the less 

stringent 1997 standard. It is also the 

lowest marginal cost where EPA expects 

NOX reduction to be cost effective, 

based on our assessment of EGU NOX

mitigation strategies (see section B). 

Specifically, the cost of this approach to 

NOX reduction is the marginal cost of 

running currently operating SCR and 

SNCR systems at higher levels of NOX

removal than they are currently 

achieving. The EPA has not identified a 

discrete NOX pollution control measure 

that would achieve sufficient emission 

reductions to address relevant air 

quality impacts at an estimated cost of 

less than $500 per ton; as a result, the 

EPA has not included a representation 

of such a cost level in this proposal’s 

analyses.95

The EPA then evaluated EGU NOX

cost thresholds to determine an 

appropriate upper bound for our 

assessment. The EPA identified $10,000 

per ton as an upper bound, exceeding 

the costs of operating existing or 

installing new EGU NOX controls. 

The EPA seeks comment on whether 

$500 per ton is an appropriate minimum 

and $10,000 per ton is an appropriate 

maximum uniform cost threshold to 

evaluate for the purpose of quantifying 

EGU NOX reductions to reduce 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

96The cost assessment for new SCR is available 

in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While 

chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SCRs were 

not considered a feasible control on the compliance 

timeframe being proposed for this rule. 

97The cost assessment for new SNCR is available 

in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While 

chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SNCRs were 

not considered a feasible control on the compliance 

timeframe being proposed for this rule. 

98 IPM version 5.14 is discussed in preamble 

section IV.B, and as noted in preamble section V, 

for purposes of this quantification analysis EPA 

used an adjusted base case reflecting IPM version 

5.15, including the Clean Power Plan. IPM 

documentation is in the docket and available at 

www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling. 

The EPA then determined appropriate 

EGU NOX cost thresholds to evaluate 

within the range of $500 per ton to 

$10,000 per ton. As described above, 

these cost thresholds are informed by 

our assessment of the costs at which 

EGU NOX control strategies are widely 

available. While the EPA could evaluate 

additional cost thresholds in between 

those selected, this would not yield 

meaningful insights as to NOX reduction 

potential. The EPA has identified cost 

thresholds where control technologies 

are widely available and thereby where 

the most significant incremental 

emission reduction potential is 

expected. Analyzing costs between 

these cost thresholds is not expected to 

reveal significant incremental emission 

reduction potential that isn’t already 

anticipated at the analyzed cost 

thresholds. Table VI.C–1 lists the EGU 

NOX cost thresholds evaluated and the 

NOX reduction strategy or policy used to 

identify each cost threshold. 

TABLE VI.C–1 

EGU NOX cost 

threshold 

$500/ton ..................... CSAPR ozone season NOX cost threshold; fully operating post-combustion controls that are already running. 

$1,300/ton .................. Widespread availability of restarting idled SCRs and state of the art combustion controls. 

$3,400/ton .................. NOX SIP Call ozone season NOX cost threshold, adjusted to 2014$; Widespread availability of restarting idled SNCRs. 

$5,000/ton .................. Widespread availability of new SCRs.96

$6,400/ton .................. Widespread availability of new SNCRs.97

$10,000/ton ................ Upper bound. 

The EPA proposes that this range and 

selection of interim uniform cost 

thresholds are appropriate to evaluate 

potential EGU NOX reduction 

obligations to address interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Because these cost thresholds are linked 

to costs at which EGU NOX mitigation 

strategies become widely available in 

each state, the cost thresholds represent 

the break points at which the most 

significant step-changes in EGU NOX

mitigation are expected. The EPA seeks 

comment on the appropriateness of 

evaluating these uniform cost thresholds 

for the purpose of quantifying EGU NOX

reductions to reduce interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX

Reductions, and Air Quality 

The EPA analyzed ozone season NOX

emission reductions available from the 

power sector in each state using IPM.98

The agency analyzed levels of uniform 

control stringency, where each level is 

represented by uniform EGU NOX cost 

thresholds listed in Table VI.C–1 above 

and repeated here: $500 per ton; $1,300 

per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; 

$6,400 per ton; and $10,000 per ton. The 

EPA limited IPM’s NOX mitigation 

strategies to those that could be 

implemented for 2017, as described in 

section VI.B. 

The analysis applied these uniform 

EGU NOX cost thresholds to EGUs in the 

48 contiguous United States and the 

District of Columbia, starting in 2017. 

The analysis covered EGUs with a 

capacity (electrical output) greater than 

25 MW to make the analysis similar to 

previous analyses done for interstate 

transport purposes. The EGU Emission 

Reduction Cost Analysis TSD, which is 

in the docket for this proposed rule, 

provides further details of EPA’s 

analysis of ozone season NOX emission 

reductions occurring at the 

representative EGU NOX cost thresholds 

analyzed for the 2017 ozone season. 

Table VI.D—1 shows the 2017 

baseline EGU emissions and ozone 

season NOX reduction potential in each 

state corresponding to the uniform cost 

levels. 

TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS) 

State 

2017 emissions 

(short tons) 

Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative 

marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) 

Base case $500/ton $1,300/ton $3,400/ton 

Alabama ................................................................................... 13,289 1,729 3,582 3,670 

Arkansas .................................................................................. 6,224 13 104 859 

Illinois ....................................................................................... 10,021 395 472 546 

Indiana ..................................................................................... 41,748 6,611 12,173 12,989 

Iowa ......................................................................................... 7,911 186 423 717 

Kansas ..................................................................................... 11,332 428 438 465 

Kentucky .................................................................................. 27,141 3,608 11,896 12,382 

Louisiana .................................................................................. 10,897 64 117 400 

Maryland .................................................................................. 6,470 1,028 1,026 1,164 

Michigan ................................................................................... 20,049 403 3,033 3,528 

Mississippi ................................................................................ 7,871 82 297 893 

Missouri .................................................................................... 17,050 934 996 1,152 

New Jersey .............................................................................. 3,302 370 372 378 

New York ................................................................................. 4,948 115 284 359 

North Carolina .......................................................................... 14,435 1,922 1,922 3,526 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75735 

TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)—Continued 

State 

2017 emissions 

(short tons) 

Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative 

marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) 

Base case $500/ton $1,300/ton $3,400/ton 

Ohio ......................................................................................... 27,795 5,746 9,646 9,666 

Oklahoma ................................................................................. 19,593 703 2,170 3,169 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 41,533 2,210 26,759 26,791 

Tennessee ............................................................................... 5,554 74 113 146 

Texas ....................................................................................... 58,199 685 3,610 5,810 

Virginia ..................................................................................... 7,196 423 539 1,587 

West Virginia ............................................................................ 25,384 592 10,908 12,014 

Wisconsin ................................................................................. 5,257 5 36 107 

Total .................................................................................. 393,198 28,325 90,916 102,318 

TABLE VI.D–1 (CONTINUED)—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS) 

State 

Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative 

marginal costs per ton (in 2011$) 

$5,000/ton $6,400/ton $10,000/ton 

Alabama ..................................................................................................................... 4,780 5,418 5,840 

Arkansas .................................................................................................................... 1,147 1,242 1,935 

Illinois ......................................................................................................................... 622 640 761 

Indiana ....................................................................................................................... 13,770 13,437 17,109 

Iowa ........................................................................................................................... 717 717 1,317 

Kansas ....................................................................................................................... 677 838 1,150 

Kentucky .................................................................................................................... 12,473 13,456 14,503 

Louisiana .................................................................................................................... 461 467 706 

Maryland .................................................................................................................... 1,176 1,369 1,369 

Michigan ..................................................................................................................... 3,756 3,889 4,411 

Mississippi .................................................................................................................. 1,165 1,479 2,208 

Missouri ...................................................................................................................... 1,298 1,930 2,775 

New Jersey ................................................................................................................ 381 384 465 

New York ................................................................................................................... 370 661 906 

North Carolina ............................................................................................................ 3,626 4,415 4,643 

Ohio ........................................................................................................................... 9,773 10,078 10,231 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................... 3,821 5,702 6,609 

Pennsylvania .............................................................................................................. 26,913 26,932 27,091 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................. 224 241 285 

Texas ......................................................................................................................... 6,940 7,772 8,380 

Virginia ....................................................................................................................... 3,104 3,560 3,610 

West Virginia .............................................................................................................. 12,211 12,243 12,243 

Wisconsin ................................................................................................................... 131 276 618 

Total .................................................................................................................... 109,535 117,145 129,166 

Next, the EPA performed a combined 

multi-factor assessment of costs (i.e., the 

uniform cost thresholds evaluated), EGU 

NOX reductions (i.e., the reductions in 

Table VI.D–1), and corresponding 

improvements in downwind ozone 

concentrations. For this assessment, the 

EPA used simplifying assumptions 

regarding the relationship between EGU 

NOX emissions and corresponding 

ozone concentrations at nonattainment 

and maintenance receptors of concern. 

For more information about how this 

assessment was performed, refer to the 

Ozone Transport Policy Analysis 

Technical Support Document. 

For each nonattainment or 

maintenance receptor identified for this 

proposal, the EPA evaluated the air 

quality improvement at that receptor 

that is expected from progressively more 

stringent upwind EGU NOX reductions 

in states that are linked to that receptor. 

For example, the EPA evaluated the 

Harford County Maryland receptor with 

all linked states controlling their 

emissions at $500 per ton. This 

assessment showed a 0.35 ppb 

reduction in expected ozone design 

values at $500 per ton. The residual 

design values at this site are still 

expected to exceed the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS with an average design value of 

81.2 ppb and a maximum design value 

of 83.9 ppb. Next, the EPA evaluated 

this receptor with all linked states 

controlling their emissions at $1,300 per 

ton. This assessment showed a 0.94 ppb 

reduction in expected ozone design 

values. At a cost threshold of $1,300 per 

ton, the residual design values at this 

site are expected to continue to exceed 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS with an average 

design value of 80.6 ppb and a 

maximum design value of 83.3 ppb. 

With respect to this receptor, the EPA 

then evaluated each progressively more 

stringent uniform control stringency (i.e. 

$3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; $6,400 

per ton; and $10,000 per ton). Generally, 

the EPA evaluated the air quality 

improvements at each monitoring site 

for each progressively more stringent 

uniform EGU NOX control level. This 

information is available in the Ozone 

Transport Policy Analysis TSD. 

This approach evaluates interstate 

ozone transport for each receptor 

independently. Also, by evaluating the 

downwind ozone impact of upwind 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

reductions that are made in all linked 

states at the same uniform control 

stringency, this approach provides 

equitable treatment of all upwind states 

as to their contribution to each 

downwind receptor to which they are 

linked. 

The EPA aggregates the relevant data 

(i.e., cost of control, EGU NOX reduction 

potential, and downwind ozone 

reduction metrics) in a multi-factor test 

that allows the EPA to evaluate the costeffectiveness of various levels of 

emission reductions and the resulting 

improvements in downwind ozone 

concentrations. 

This evaluation shows that 

meaningful EGU NOX reductions are 

available at reasonable cost and that 

these reductions can provide 

meaningful improvements in downwind 

ozone concentrations at the identified 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors for this proposal. For example, 

the combined downwind ozone 

improvement across nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors is approximately 

19 ppb at the $1,300 per ton level. See 

Figure VI.1. 

Combining costs, EGU NOX

reductions, and corresponding 

improvements in downwind ozone 

concentrations results in a ‘‘knee in the 

curve’’ at $1,300 per ton. This uniform 

cost of reduction represents the 

threshold at which EGU NOX reduction 

potential and corresponding downwind 

ozone air quality improvements are 

maximized with respect to marginal 

cost. That is, the ratio of emission 

reductions to marginal cost and the ratio 

of ozone improvements to marginal cost 

are maximized relative to the other 

uniform cost thresholds evaluated. 

Further, at higher cost thresholds, as a 

result of this analysis we do not 

anticipate significant additional 

reductions that would justify these 

higher costs. 

As part of this analysis, the EPA 

evaluates potential over-control with 

respect to whether (1) the expected 

ozone improvements would be 

sufficient or greater than necessary to 

resolve the downwind ozone pollution 

problem (i.e., resolving nonattainment 

or maintenance problems) or (2) the 

expected ozone improvements would 

reduce upwind state ozone 

contributions to below the screening 

threshold (i.e., 1% of the NAAQS). 

In EME Homer City, the Supreme 

Court held that EPA cannot ‘‘require[ ] 

an upwind State to reduce emissions by 

more than the amount necessary to 

achieve attainment in every downwind 

State to which it is linked.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 

1608. On remand from the Supreme 

Court, the D.C. Circuit held that this 

means that EPA might overstep its 

authority ‘‘when those downwind 

locations would achieve attainment 

even if less stringent emissions limits 

were imposed on the upwind States 

linked to those locations.’’ EME Homer 

City II, 795 F.3d at 127. The D.C. Circuit 

qualified this statement by noting that 

this ‘‘does not mean that every such 

upwind State would then be entitled to 

less stringent emission limits. Some of 

those upwind States may still be subject 

to the more stringent emissions limits so 

as not to cause other downwind 

locations to which those States are 

linked to fall into nonattainment.’’ Id. at 

14–15. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03DE15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75737 

Consistent with these instructions 

from the Supreme Court and the D.C. 

Circuit, the EPA evaluated whether 

reductions quantified under the 

evaluated cost thresholds can be 

anticipated to resolve any downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

(as defined in section V) and by how 

much. 

The EPA’s assessment shows that the 

uniform control stringency represented 

by $500 per ton would resolve the 

maintenance problem at two downwind 

maintenance receptors—Ocean County, 

New Jersey (maximum design value of 

75.9 ppb) and Oldham County, 

Kentucky (maximum design value of 

75.8 ppb). Because no state is linked 

solely to one of these maintenance 

receptors, resolving these downwind air 

quality impact does not fully address 

any individual upwind state’s good 

neighbor obligation. 

This assessment shows that the 

uniform control stringency represented 

by $1,300 per ton would resolve 

maintenance problems at three 

additional downwind maintenance 

receptors—Baltimore County, Maryland 

(maximum design value of 75.6 ppb), 

Hamilton County, Ohio (maximum 

design value of 75.1 ppb), and 

Gloucester County, New Jersey 

(maximum design value of 75.8 ppb). 

The EPA’s assessment shows that this 

control level does resolve the only 

identified nonattainment or 

maintenance problem to which North 

Carolina is linked for this proposal—the 

Baltimore County, Maryland 

maintenance receptor. The EPA 

therefore proposes that this EGU control 

level would fully address North 

Carolina’s good neighbor obligation 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA seeks comment on this 

determination. 

The EPA also proposes that, based on 

the information supporting this 

proposal, this level of EGU NOX control 

for North Carolina would not constitute 

over-control as to the Baltimore County 

receptor. The level of the 2008 ozone 

standard NAAQS is 75 ppb. At the 

uniform $1,300 per ton cost threshold, 

EPA’s assessment demonstrates that the 

receptor would just be maintaining the 

standard, with a maximum design value 

of 75.6 ppb. Therefore, the emissions 

reductions that would be achieved at 

the $1,300 per ton cost threshold would 

not result in air quality improvements at 

the Baltimore County receptor 

significantly better than the standard 

such the emission reductions might 

constitute over-control as to that 

receptor. On the contrary, the emission 

reductions achieved in upwind states at 

the $1,300 per ton cost threshold are 

necessary to bring the maximum design 

value at the Baltimore County receptor 

into alignment with the standard. The 

EPA also seeks comment on this 

determination. 

For the remainder of the states for 

which the EPA is proposing FIPs in this 

action, none of these states are linked 

solely to one of these maintenance 

receptors with air quality resolved at the 

$1,300 per ton cost threshold. Therefore, 

resolving these downwind air quality 

impacts does not fully address any other 

individual upwind state’s good neighbor 

obligation. 

As noted above the EPA is proposing 

that the $1,300 per ton EGU control 

level would fully address North 

Carolina’s good neighbor obligation 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

As such, based on the data supporting 

this proposal, North Carolina was 

excluded from assessment of air quality 

improvements at more stringent uniform 

EGU NOX control levels. 

The EPA’s assessment shows that the 

uniform control stringency represented 

by $3,400 per ton would resolve the 

maintenance problem at two additional 

downwind maintenance receptors— 

Denton County, Texas (481211032) 

(maximum design value of 75.9 ppb) 

and Harris County, Texas (482011050) 

(maximum design value of 75.9 ppb). 

Because no state is linked solely to one 

of these maintenance receptors, 

resolving these downwind air quality 

impacts does not fully address any 

individual upwind state’s good neighbor 

obligation. 

The EPA provides this summary of 

the evaluation for the $500 per ton; 

$1,300 per ton; and $3,400 per ton 

uniform cost thresholds because, as 

described below, the EPA is proposing 

to use the $1,300 per ton level and is 

taking comment on using the $500 per 

ton level or $3,400 per ton level to 

quantify ozone season EGU NOX

requirements to reduce interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Further information on the EPA’s 

evaluation of these cost thresholds as 

well as additional cost thresholds 

($5,000 per ton; $6,400 per ton; and 

$10,000 per ton) are provided in the 

Ozone Transport Policy Analysis 

Technical Support Document. 

Additionally, Table VI.D–2 provides a 

summary of the expected number of 

nonattainment and maintenance-only 

receptors at the adjusted base case and 

cost thresholds. 

TABLE VI.D–2—NUMBER OF NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS AFTER EGU NOX MITIGATION

Cost threshold Nonattainment 

receptors 

Maintenanceonly receptors 

Base Case (IPM 5.15 w/CPP) ................................................................................................................................. 12 21 

$500 per ton ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 19 

$1,300 per ton ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 14 

$3,400 per ton ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 13 

$5,000 per ton ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 13 

$6,400 per ton ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 13 

$10,000 per ton ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 12 

In EME Homer City, the Supreme 

Court also held that ‘‘EPA cannot 

require a State to reduce its output of 

pollution . . . at odds with the onepercent threshold the Agency has set.’’ 

134 S.Ct. at 1608. The Court explained 

that ‘‘EPA cannot demand reductions 

that would drive an upwind State’s 

contribution to every downwind State to 

which it is linked below one percent of 

the relevant NAAQS.’’ Id. Accordingly, 

the EPA also evaluated the potential for 

over-control with respect to the 1% 

threshold proposed to be applied in this 

rulemaking at each relevant cost 

threshold. Specifically, the EPA 

evaluated whether the uniform cost 

thresholds would reduce upwind EGU 

emissions to a level where the 

contribution from each upwind state 

would be below the 1% threshold that 

linked the upwind state to the 

downwind receptors. If the EPA found 

that any state’s reduction obligation at 

the applied cost threshold decreased its 

contribution to every downwind 

receptor to which it is linked below the 

1% threshold, we would need to adjust 

the state’s reduction obligation 

accordingly. The EPA’s assessment 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

99As discussed above, North Carolina would not 

be regulated at any level higher than $1300/ton and 

at that level, there’s no over-control as to the 1% 

threshold. In fact, while the receptor to which 

North Carolina is linked resolves its maintenance 

problem at the $1,300/ton level, North Carolina 

would continue to contribute equal to or greater 

than 1% to that air quality monitor. 

reveals that there is not over-control 

with respect to the 1% threshold at any 

of the evaluated uniform costs in any 

upwind state; in fact, even at the highest 

uniform cost threshold evaluated (e.g., 

$10,000 per ton), all upwind states that 

contributed greater than or equal to the 

1% threshold in the base case continued 

to contribute greater than or equal to 1% 

of the NAAQS to at least one downwind 

nonattainment or maintenance 

receptor.99 Therefore, the EPA does not 

expect any of the uniform cost 

thresholds evaluated to result in overcontrol relative to the 1% threshold. For 

more information about this assessment, 

refer to the Ozone Transport Policy 

Analysis Technical Support Document. 

The EPA proposes to determine ozone 

season EGU NOX control requirements 

for upwind states to reduce interstate 

ozone transport for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS based on the reduction 

potential quantified from pollution 

control measures that are cost-effective 

at the $1,300 per ton level. The EPA 

seeks comment on potentially basing 

these ozone season NOX control 

requirements on uniform cost levels that 

are less stringent ($500 per ton) or more 

stringent ($3,400 per ton), including 

comments on the proposed approach to 

addressing a state like North Carolina in 

such a situation, which is explained 

below. 

The EPA notes that the evaluation of 

cost, NOX reductions, and ozone 

improvements for the final rule could 

show different results for different 

states. For example, one or more states 

could fully address their good neighbor 

obligation based on ozone season NOX

control requirements represented by one 

cost level while one or more other states 

would not fully address their good 

neighbor obligation at that level and 

would have ozone season NOX control 

requirements based on a more stringent 

cost level in order to fully address or 

make further progress toward partially 

addressing their good neighbor 

obligation. In this situation, the EPA 

proposes that it would quantify 

requirements for these different groups 

of states based on different uniform 

control stringencies. This could be 

similar to EPA’s establishing two 

different SO2 groups under the original 

CSAPR as to addressing PM2.5 transport. 

The EPA seeks comment on this 

proposed approach for quantifying 

requirements. 

The EPA also seeks comment on 

implementation of the resulting 

emissions budgets. The EPA proposes 

that if there are groups of states with 

ozone season NOX control requirements 

based on different cost levels, we would 

nevertheless finalize FIPs for the states 

in these groups of states that incorporate 

participation in a trading program that 

allows them to trade allowances with 

each other subject to limitations 

described in section VII of this proposal. 

By way of example and as noted 

above, the EPA is also seeking comment 

on potentially basing ozone season NOX

control requirements on the $3,400 per 

ton uniform cost levels. If the EPA were 

to finalize ozone season NOX control 

requirements based on this level, given 

the specific data informing this 

proposal, then the EPA would set North 

Carolina’s requirements based on the 

less stringent $1,300 per ton level 

because, as discussed above, the sole 

receptor to which North Carolina is 

linked for this proposal is resolved at 

the $1,300 per ton level with a 

maximum design value of 75.6 ppb. 

Therefore, because the $1,300 per ton 

level fully addresses North Carolina’s 

good neighbor obligation, if EPA were to 

determine ozone season NOX control 

requirements based on the $3,400 per 

ton level for the remainder of states, the 

EPA would finalize good neighbor 

requirements for these two groups of 

states using different uniform control 

stringencies. The EPA proposes that it 

would finalize FIPs for the states that 

incorporate participation in a trading 

program that allows them to trade 

allowances with each other subject to 

limitations described in section VII of 

this proposal. 

The EPA’s selection of reductions for 

this proposed rule is specific to, and 

appropriate for, defining near-term 

achievable upwind obligations with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

states where a FIP is necessary. We do 

not intend—nor do we believe we 

would be justified in doing so in any 

event—that the cost-level-based 

determinations in this proposed rule 

impose a constraint for selection of cost 

levels in addressing transported 

pollution with respect to future NAAQS 

and/or any revisions to these FIPs for 

any other future transport rules that the 

EPA may develop to address any 

potential remaining obligation as to the 

current NAAQS, for which different cost 

levels may be appropriate. 

As described above, the EPA is 

proposing that the NOX emission 

reductions associated with uniform 

control stringency represented by 

$1,300 per ton would not result in overcontrol at any of the identified nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

and it is reasonable to require such 

reductions from upwind states. 

The EPA requests comment on its 

proposal to quantify ozone season EGU 

NOX reductions to reduce interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS using the $1,300 per ton 

uniform cost threshold. 

Note that our assessment of EGU NOX

reduction potential shows zero 

reductions available in Delaware in 

2017 at any evaluated cost threshold. At 

this time, because the assessment shows 

no EGU NOX reduction potential within 

Delaware up to $10,000 per ton and 

because Delaware does not currently 

participate in the original CSAPR NOX

ozone-season allowance trading 

program, the EPA is not proposing to 

promulgate a FIP for Delaware to be 

included in this rule. However, as this 

assessment has only considered 

reductions available at EGUs by 2017, 

the EPA cannot at this time conclude 

that Delaware does not have reductions 

available on a longer timeframe or from 

other emission sectors. Accordingly, the 

EPA cannot conclude at this time that 

Delaware does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance at downwind 

receptors to which it is linked. The EPA 

will evaluate additional reduction 

potential from Delaware in a future 

rulemaking to address the 2008 ozone 

standard. The EPA seeks comment on 

not including Delaware in the proposed 

FIPs. 

The EPA’s EGU NOX reduction 

assessment also shows nearly zero 

reductions available in Wisconsin in 

2017 at the proposed $1,300 per ton cost 

threshold. However, Wisconsin 

currently participates in the original 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions 

trading program and Wisconsin’s 

original CSAPR NOX ozone emissions 

budget is greater than its projected base 

case emissions. The EPA proposes to 

update Wisconsin’s emissions budgets 

because not doing so would mean that 

Wisconsin, which is found to contribute 

above 1% to downwind ozone 

problems, could increase emissions 

above its base case level. The EPA 

proposes to determine ozone season 

NOX control requirements for Wisconsin 

to reduce interstate ozone transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the 

reduction potential quantified from 

pollution control measures that are costeffective at the $1,300 per ton level. For 

Wisconsin, based on modeling for this 

proposal, this level is similar to its 

projected base-case level. The EPA seeks 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75739 

comment on the proposed FIP for 

Wisconsin. 

The EPA also requests comment as to 

whether the EPA should treat Delaware 

and Wisconsin in the same manner with 

respect to their inclusion or exclusion 

from the ozone-season trading program 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

For example, the EPA requests comment 

as to whether both Delaware and 

Wisconsin should be included in the 

ozone-season trading program with 

budgets on the reduction potential 

quantified from pollution control 

measures that are cost-effective at 

$1,300 per ton,. EPA also requests 

comment as to whether both states 

should instead be excluded from the 

ozone-season trading program. 

E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets 

The proposed emissions budgets 

reflect remaining EGU emissions after 

upwind states achieve the emission 

reduction obligations defined in section 

VI of this proposal. 

In the original CSAPR proposal, the 

EPA set proposed emissions budgets by 

using an approach that considered 

monitored state-level heat input and 

modeled state-level emissions rates. 

However, for the CSAPR final rule, the 

EPA set budgets using only the 

modeling results from CSAPR’s uniform 

cost assessment. For this rule, the EPA 

proposes to set emissions budgets by 

considering monitored heat input and 

modeled emissions rates, similar to the 

original CSAPR proposal. The EPA 

seeks comment on all aspects of 

quantifying state emissions budgets 

reflecting upwind obligations, including 

alternative metrics to heat input, such as 

generation. 

The EPA proposes to quantify state 

emissions budgets using the minimum 

of calculated EGU emissions budgets 

using the state-level EGU NOX emission 

rates that correspond to the upwind 

state reductions identified above using a 

uniform cost threshold of $1,300 per ton 

or 2014 monitored historic emissions. 

The proposed approach for translating 

this EGU NOX reduction potential into 

emissions budgets is a four step process. 

First, the EPA would use the resulting 

2018 state-level modeled EGU NOX

emissions rate (lbs/mmBtu) from the 

IPM $1,300 per ton uniform cost 

assessment. The state-level rate is 

calculated as the total emissions from 

affected sources within the state, 

divided by the total heat input from 

these sources. Second, the EPA 

proposes to multiply this modeled statelevel emissions rate by 2014 monitored 

historic state-level heat input. 

Multiplying the projected state-level 

emissions rate by historical heat input 

yields state-specific ozone season EGU 

NOX emissions for 2018. Third, the EPA 

proposes to add an adjustment to 

account for differences in unit 

availability between the IPM 2018 run 

year and 2017, yielding state-specific 

ozone season EGU NOX emissions for 

2017. Finally, the EPA then proposes 

EGU emissions budgets as the minimum 

of this calculated 2017 emission level or 

2014 historic monitored emissions. 

This proposed approach reflects the 

EGU NOX reduction potential described 

above and grounds the EPA’s 

quantification of emissions budgets in 

historical data. The proposed EGU NOx 

ozone-season emissions budgets 

calculated using this approach can be 

found in Table VI.E–1. Tables VI.E–2 

and VI.E–3 provide the EGU NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets 

reflecting EGU NOX mitigation available 

for 2017 at $500 per ton and $3,400 per 

ton, respectively. 

TABLE VI.E–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION

AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON

State 

2014 

emissions 

(tons) 

2018 

$1,300/ton 

emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

2014 Heat Input 

(MMBtu) 

2017 

adjustment 

(tons) 100

2017 EGU NOX

Ozone-season 

emissions budget 

(tons) 

Alabama ........................................................... 21,075 0.049 410,477,094 0 9,979 

Arkansas .......................................................... 18,135 0.074 185,511,093 51 6,949 

Illinois ............................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 9 12,078 

Indiana ............................................................. 40,247 0.126 447,417,615 0 28,284 

Iowa .................................................................. 13,857 0.11 151,989,571 0 8,351 

Kansas ............................................................. 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,272 

Kentucky .......................................................... 33,896 0.102 380,694,315 2,169 21,519 

Louisiana .......................................................... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,807 

Maryland .......................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,669 4,026 

Michigan ........................................................... 25,065 0.112 307,723,171 1,836 19,115 

Mississippi ........................................................ 10,229 0.069 172,406,970 0 5,910 

Missouri ............................................................ 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,210 15,323 

New Jersey ...................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,015 

New York ......................................................... 5,547 0.038 235,619,397 0 4,450 

North Carolina .................................................. 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,275 

Ohio .................................................................. 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,660 

Oklahoma ......................................................... 16,215 0.144 236,715,186 154 16,215 

Pennsylvania .................................................... 44,551 0.057 508,608,673 0 14,387 

Tennessee ....................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,481 

Texas ............................................................... 58,492 0.079 1,474,773,212 33 58,002 

Virginia ............................................................. 9,695 0.076 179,324,728 0 6,818 

West Virginia .................................................... 29,420 0.084 317,087,558 0 13,390 

Wisconsin ......................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,561 

23 State Region ........................................ 478,610 ............................ 7,581,393,627 ............................ 311,867 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.E–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION

AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $500 PER TON

State 2014 emissions 

(tons) 

2018 $500/ton 

emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

2014 heat input 

(MMBtu) 

2017 adjustment 

(tons) 101

2017 EGU NOX

ozone-season 

emissions budget 

(tons) 

Alabama ........................................................... 21,075 0.058 410,477,094 0 11,886 

Arkansas .......................................................... 18,135 0.075 185,511,093 51 7,038 

Illinois ............................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 23 12,144 

Indiana ............................................................. 40,247 0.15 447,417,615 0 33,483 

Iowa .................................................................. 13,857 0.113 151,989,571 0 8,614 

Kansas ............................................................. 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,278 

Kentucky .......................................................... 33,896 0.149 380,694,315 4,463 32,783 

Louisiana .......................................................... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,861 

Maryland .......................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,672 4,026 

Michigan ........................................................... 25,065 0.131 307,723,171 1,836 22,022 

Mississippi ........................................................ 10,229 0.071 172,406,970 0 6,083 

Missouri ............................................................ 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,123 15,380 

New Jersey ...................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,016 

New York ......................................................... 5,547 0.039 235,619,397 0 4,607 

North Carolina .................................................. 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,278 

Ohio .................................................................. 32,181 0.088 457,251,027 0 20,194 

Oklahoma ......................................................... 16,215 0.156 236,715,186 154 16,215 

Pennsylvania .................................................... 44,551 0.15 508,608,673 0 38,270 

Tennessee ....................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,520 

Texas ............................................................... 58,492 0.083 1,474,773,212 0 58,492 

Virginia ............................................................. 9,695 0.078 179,324,728 0 6,955 

West Virginia .................................................... 29,420 0.145 317,087,558 0 22,932 

Wisconsin ......................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,588 

23 State Region ........................................ 478,610 ............................ 7,581,393,627 ............................ 371,665 

TABLE VI.E–3—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION

AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $3,400 PER TON

State 2014 emissions 

(tons) 

2018 $3,400/ton 

emission rate 

(lbs/MMBtu) 

2014 heat input 

(MMBtu) 

2017 adjustment 

(tons) 102

2017 EGU NOX

ozone-season 

emissions budget 

(tons) 

Alabama ........................................................... 21,075 0.048 410,477,094 0 9,931 

Arkansas .......................................................... 18,135 0.065 185,511,093 51 6,101 

Illinois ............................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 0 11,992 

Indiana ............................................................. 40,247 0.123 447,417,615 0 27,585 

Iowa .................................................................. 13,857 0.107 151,989,571 0 8,118 

Kansas ............................................................. 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,259 

Kentucky .......................................................... 33,896 0.099 380,694,315 2,169 20,945 

Louisiana .......................................................... 18,278 0.094 326,662,000 17 15,378 

Maryland .......................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,523 4,026 

Michigan ........................................................... 25,065 0.108 307,723,171 1,978 18,624 

Mississippi ........................................................ 10,229 0.064 172,406,970 0 5,487 

Missouri ............................................................ 31,235 0.083 330,006,788 1,500 15,240 

New Jersey ...................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,011 

New York ......................................................... 5,547 0.037 235,619,397 0 4,391 

North Carolina .................................................. 16,759 0.068 315,255,877 0 10,705 

Ohio .................................................................. 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,637 

Oklahoma ......................................................... 16,215 0.137 236,715,186 146 16,215 

Pennsylvania .................................................... 44,551 0.056 508,608,673 0 14,358 

Tennessee ....................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,449 

Texas ............................................................... 58,492 0.076 1,474,773,212 100 55,864 

Virginia ............................................................. 9,695 0.065 179,324,728 0 5,834 

West Virginia .................................................... 29,420 0.078 317,087,558 0 12,367 

Wisconsin ......................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,511 

23 State Region ........................................ 478,610 ............................ 7,581,393,627 ............................ 302,028 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75741 

100The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used 

in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because 

it would push their budget above their 2014 

emissions. 

101The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used 

in calculating for Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas 

because it would push their budget above their 

2014 emissions. 

102The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used 

in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because 

it would push their budget above their 2014 

emissions. 

VII. Implementation Using the Existing 

CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Allowance 

Trading Program and Relationship to 

Other Rules 

A. Background 

This section describes implementing 

and enforcing the budgets quantified in 

section VI. In the 4-step CSAPR 

methodology previously described, once 

emission reduction potential is 

quantified into emissions budgets, the 

remaining step is to identify an 

approach for ensuring that such 

reductions occur and are enforceable. 

As discussed previously, EPA is 

proposing implement the budgets to 

address the 2008 ozone NAAQS using 

the existing CSAPR trading program that 

allows limited interstate trading among 

states participating in the ozone-season 

trading program. The EPA proposes to 

revise the existing budgets, developed to 

address transport as to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, where necessary to reflect the 

additional reductions that the EPA 

identified as necessary to address 

transport as to the 2008 NAAQS. The 

EPA will implement the trading 

program in each affected state through 

the issuance of a FIP. 

In electing to propose to implement 

these near-term EGU reductions for the 

2008 ozone standard using the existing 

CSAPR trading infrastructure, the EPA 

considered the many significant 

advantages of continuing to use the 

existing CSAPR program, including the 

ease of transition to the new budgets, 

the economic and administrative 

efficiency of trading approaches, and 

the flexibility afforded to sources 

regarding compliance. 

The EPA also considered views 

expressed by some stakeholders that a 

complementary short-term (e.g., 30-day) 

rate-based limit would ensure that 

control measures adopted to meet the 

revised budgets continue to operate over 

time. Some stakeholders have observed, 

for example, that some existing SCR and 

SNCR units may not have operated in 

recent years because CAIR allowance 

prices are below the operating costs of 

the controls. The EPA notes that in such 

cases, the CAIR emissions budgets that 

states were required to meet to address 

significant contribution for the 1997 

NAAQS were in fact still being met. The 

EPA will also evaluate power sector 

behavior for 2015, the first year of 

CSAPR implementation, and provide 

that assessment for the final rule. The 

EPA expects that certain aspects of this 

proposal will alleviate some of these 

concerns. In particular, this proposal is 

aimed at establishing new, lower 

emissions budgets that are calculated 

based on a uniform cost that is reflective 

of, among other things, operating those 

controls. Furthermore, as described later 

in this notice, we are proposing 

adjustments to the CSAPR regulations 

that, if adopted, would address the role 

that the banked allowances may play in 

allowance prices. For these reasons, the 

EPA does not believe that including a 

short-term complementary rate-based 

limit in the proposed FIPs is necessary. 

Nevertheless, we invite comment on the 

need for such an approach and, from 

commenters arguing that it is needed, 

we invite suggestions for calculating it. 

As explained in greater detail in 

section IV, under CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is 

required to submit a SIP that provides 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each primary or 

secondary NAAQS. According to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the SIP for 

each state, regardless of a state’s 

designation status for the relevant 

NAAQS, must prohibit sources or other 

types of emissions activity from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ of the standard in a 

downwind state or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the standard in a 

downwind state. Section IV also 

explains in detail that the EPA is 

obligated to promulgate FIPs when we 

find that a state fails to submit a 

complete SIP or the EPA disapproves a 

SIP submittal. 

The EPA recognizes that several states 

included in this proposal have 

submitted transport SIPs to address the 

2008 ozone standard that the EPA is 

reviewing, and it is possible that 

additional states may submit SIPs in the 

future. As explained in section IV 

above, the EPA may only finalize FIPs 

for states where FIP authority exists; 

that is, for states where either the EPA 

found that the state failed to submit a 

complete transport SIP or where the 

EPA has disapproved a transport SIP 

submittal for that state. The EPA intends 

to finalize these proposed FIPs together 

in a single action and, to the greatest 

extent possible, the EPA intends to take 

final action on SIP submittals currently 

before the agency prior to finalizing this 

proposal. In the event that a state plans 

to revise its SIP or submit a SIP prior to 

any final rule, contact your regional 

office to alert the EPA. 

By this action, the EPA is proposing 

federal implementation plans with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 

each state potentially covered by this 

rule. Section VI above describes the 

EPA’s approach to defining state-level 

EGU emissions budgets that represent 

the EGU emissions remaining after 

reducing that state’s significant 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and/or interference with 

maintenance. The EPA is proposing to 

implement these EGU emissions 

budgets in the FIPs through the CSAPR 

EGU NOX ozone-season trading 

program. 

When the EPA finalized CSAPR in 

2011 under the good neighbor provision 

of the CAA to reduce emissions of SO2

and NOX from power plants in eastern 

states, the rule put in place regional 

trading programs to quickly and costeffectively address pollution that affects 

air quality in downwind states. The EPA 

envisioned that the methodology could 

be used to address transport concerns 

under other existing NAAQS and future 

NAAQS revisions. See 76 FR 48211 and 

48246, August 8, 2011. Accordingly, the 

EPA proposes to use the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program and related 

provisions as codified under 40 CFR 

part 97, subpart BBBBB and section 

52.38, as amended in this proposal, to 

implement the proposed EGU NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. This program will 

be initially implemented in each state 

through a FIP. 

In this notice, the EPA proposes that 

the first control period for the 

requirements is the 2017 ozone season. 

A covered state would be required to 

demonstrate compliance with FIP 

requirements for each subsequent ozone 

season until it submits, and the EPA 

approves, a SIP or the EPA promulgates 

another federal rule replacing the FIP. 

The EPA notes that the compliance 

flexibility provided by the CSAPR NOX

ozone-season trading program allows 

sources to demonstrate compliance by 

holding allowances and does not 

prescribe unit-specific and technologyspecific NOX mitigation. In other words, 

while the EPA quantified EGU NOX

reductions resulting from mitigation 

strategies such as operating or installing 

(or upgrading to) state-of-the-art 

combustion controls, no particular 

reduction strategy is required for any 

specific unit because the Act only 

requires that an upwind state’s aggregate 

emissions neither significantly 

contribute to nonattainment nor 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in a downwind state. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

103The EPA notes that a state can instead require 

non-EGU NOX emission reductions through a SIP, 

if they choose to do so. 

In practice, the EGU emissions 

budgets that the EPA is proposing in 

this action are achievable for each of the 

23 states through operating existing SCR 

and SNCR controls, installing or 

upgrading to state-of-the-art combustion 

controls, or shifting generation to lowNOX emitting units. The EPA believes 

that this proposed rule provides 

sufficient lead time to implement these 

control strategies by the 2017 ozone 

season. For the EPA’s assessment of the 

feasibility of controls for 2017, refer to 

section VI above and the EGU NOX

Reduction TSD in the docket for this 

proposal.103

In this section of the preamble, the 

following topics are addressed: FIP 

requirements and key elements of the 

CSAPR trading programs; participation 

in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program with a new budget; source 

monitoring and reporting; replacing the 

FIP with a SIP; title V permitting; and 

the relationship of this proposed rule to 

existing programs (NOX SIP Call, 

CSAPR trading programs, Clean Power 

Plan (CPP), and other ozone transport 

programs). 

B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements 

of the CSAPR Trading Programs 

The original CSAPR establishes an 

NOX ozone-season allowance trading 

program that allows covered sources 

within each state to trade allowances 

with other sources within the same 

trading group. Pursuant to the CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season trading program, 

sources are required to hold one 

allowance for each ton of NOX emitted 

during the ozone season. We propose to 

use that same regional trading program, 

with adjusted budgets and certain 

additional revisions described below, as 

the compliance remedy for the proposed 

FIPs to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The first control period for this updated 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program is proposed to begin with the 

2017 ozone season, on May 1, 2017. 

In this section, the EPA is proposing 

to use the existing NOX ozone-season 

allowance trading system that was 

established under CSAPR in 40 CFR 

part 97, subpart BBBBB, to implement 

the emission reductions identified and 

quantified in the FIPs for this action. 

1. Applicability 

In this proposed rule, the EPA would 

maintain the applicability provisions in 

the final CSAPR rule for the NOX ozoneseason trading program (see 40 CFR 

97.504). 

Under the general applicability 

provisions of the CSAPR final rule, a 

covered unit is any stationary fossilfuel-fired boiler or combustion turbine 

serving at any time on or after January 

1, 2005, a generator with nameplate 

capacity exceeding 25 MW producing 

electricity for sale, with the exception of 

certain cogeneration units and solid 

waste incineration units (see 76 FR 

48273, August 8, 2011, for a discussion 

on applicability in the final CSAPR 

rule). The EPA is not proposing any 

changes to this provision. 

2. State Budgets 

This proposal includes revisions to 40 

CFR 97.510 to reflect new budgets for 

states covered under this proposal as 

delineated in section VI above. This 

includes the NOX ozone-season trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, and Indian 

country new unit set-asides for 2017 

and beyond, described in further detail 

below. 

For states already covered by the 

original CSAPR ozone-season program, 

the EPA proposes to update CSAPR 

EGU NOX ozone-season budgets to 

reflect obligations to reduce interstate 

transport to address the 2008 ozone 

standard. For states that are newly 

brought into the CSAPR ozone-season 

program because emissions from the 

states significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in a downwind state (i.e., Kansas based 

on information used to develop this 

proposal), the proposal includes an EGU 

NOX ozone-season emissions budget. 

For states currently in the CSAPR 

ozone-season trading program, but not 

identified as contributing to interstate 

ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS 

(i.e., Georgia based on information used 

to develop this proposal), participation 

in CSAPR would continue unchanged 

pursuant to their previously-defined 

obligation (budget) with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA proposes to establish 

reduced or new ozone-season emissions 

budgets for the 23 eastern states affected 

by the transport rule for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA proposes to 

implement these emissions budgets by 

allocating allowances to sources in 

those states equal to the proposed 

budgets for compliance starting in 2017. 

The EPA will establish allowance 

allocations for the existing units in each 

state through this rulemaking. Portions 

of the state budgets will be set aside for 

new units, and the EPA will use the 

existing processes set forth in the 

CSAPR regulations to annually allocate 

allowances to the new units in each 

state from the new unit set-asides. For 

states that are currently in the CSAPR 

ozone-season program, but are not 

affected under this proposed transport 

rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 

Georgia based on information used to 

develop this proposal), the EPA will 

maintain the state’s budget as finalized 

in the original CSAPR rulemakings. 

3. Allocations of Emission Allowances 

Pursuant to the CSAPR trading 

program regulations, a covered source is 

required to hold sufficient allowances to 

cover the emissions from all covered 

units at the source during the control 

period for the NOX ozone season. The 

EPA assesses compliance with these 

allowance-holding requirements at the 

source (i.e., facility) level. 

This section explains that the EPA 

proposes to allocate a state’s budget to 

existing units and new units in that 

state by applying the same allocation 

approach as finalized in CSAPR, based 

on a unit’s historical heat input and its 

maximum historical emissions (see 76 

FR 48284, August 8, 2011). This section 

also describes allocation for Tribes, the 

new unit set-asides and Indian country 

new unit set-asides in each state, 

allocations to units that are not 

operating; and the recordation of 

allowance allocations in source 

compliance accounts. 

A. Allocations for Existing Units 

The EPA proposes to implement each 

state’s EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budget in the trading program 

by allocating the number of emission 

allowances to sources within that state, 

equivalent to the tonnage of that specific 

state budget, as shown in section VI. For 

these 23 states, the EPA would allocate 

allowances under each state’s budget to 

covered units in that state. The portion 

of a state budget allocated to existing 

units in that state is the state budget 

minus the new unit set-aside and minus 

the Indian country new unit set-aside. 

The new unit set-asides are portions of 

each budget reserved for new units that 

might locate in each state or in Indian 

country in the future. For the existing 

source level allocations, see the TSD 

called, ‘‘Existing Source Level 

Allocations for the 2008 NOX Ozoneseason Rule FIPs,’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking. The methodology used to 

allocate allowances to individual units 

in a particular state has no impact on 

that state’s budget. 

For the purpose of allocations, an 

‘‘existing unit’’ in CSAPR is one that 

commenced commercial operation prior 

to January 1, 2010. For the 23 states 

included in this proposed rulemaking 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA 

proposes to identify an ‘‘existing unit’’ 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75743 

as one that commenced commercial 

operation prior to January 1, 2015. EPA 

has updated information on affected 

units that have commenced commercial 

operation prior to January 1, 2015 

(currently defined either as existing 

units or as new units pursuant to the 

current CSAPR regulations) that would 

allow these units to be considered 

existing units for purposes of allocations 

and would allow new unit set-asides to 

be fully reserved for any future new 

units in affected states or Indian 

country. The EPA is not proposing to 

change the January 1, 2010 date for 

states that remain in the original CSAPR 

and are not affected by the changes 

proposed here (i.e., Georgia with respect 

to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

allowances and all states with respect to 

CSAPR SO2 or NOX annual allowances); 

thus, the only allowance allocations that 

are proposed to be changed in this 

rulemaking for any units under any of 

the CSAPR trading programs are 

allocations of NOX ozone-season 

allowances from budgets that are 

proposed to be revised in this proposed 

rule. 

The EPA proposes to follow the 

original CSAPR methodology for 

distributing, or allocating, emission 

allowances to existing units based on 

the unit’s share of the state’s heat input, 

limited by the unit’s maximum 

historical emissions. This approach uses 

the highest three of the last five years to 

establish the heat input baseline for 

each unit, and constrains the unit-level 

allocations so as not to exceed the 

maximum historical baseline emissions 

during 2007–2014. As discussed in the 

original CSAPR final rule (see 76 FR 

48288–9, August 8, 2011), the EPA finds 

no advantage or disadvantage in this 

approach that would penalize those 

units that have already invested in 

cleaner fuels or other pollution 

reduction measures. The EPA considers 

this allocation approach to be fuelneutral, control-neutral, transparent, 

based on reliable data, and similar to 

allocation methodologies previously 

used in the NOX SIP Call and Acid Rain 

Program. The EPA requests comments 

on following the CSAPR approach for 

existing unit allocations in states 

covered by this proposed rule as to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

For states that have EPA-approved 

abbreviated SIP revisions adopting a 

different allocation methodology for 

sources located within the state for 

CSAPR for the 2017 ozone season and 

beyond, those provisions would address 

the allocation of revised NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets established 

under this proposed rule, provided that 

the SIP revision includes not only 

specific allocations given the total state 

budget expected at the time of the SIP 

revision, but also a methodology for 

determining allocations from any given 

total state budget. For states that have 

EPA-approved full SIP revisions, the 

EPA proposes to use the EPA-approved 

allocation provisions of the state’s SIP 

revision to allocate allowances to 

sources in that particular state using the 

revised emissions budget proposed to 

address interstate ozone transport for 

the 2008 NAAQS, again provided that 

the SIP includes not only specific 

allocations but a methodology for 

determining allocations from any given 

total state budget. 

Further, where the state regulation 

approved as a full or abbreviated SIP 

revision does not contain an allocation 

methodology but the materials 

submitted by the state to support EPA’s 

approval of that regulation as a SIP 

revision contain the state’s allocation 

method, described in an unambiguous 

manner, the EPA seeks comment on 

using that state-approved methodology 

to determine the allocations of 

allowances to sources in the state under 

the FIPs established in this proposed 

rule. These possible approaches could 

prevent a state from needing to submit 

another SIP revision to implement the 

same allocation provisions under this 

proposed rule that the state has already 

implemented under CSAPR before 

adoption of this proposed rule. 

For all other states, the EPA proposes 

to use the allocation method previously 

finalized in the final CSAPR rulemaking 

as discussed in this section. These 

provisions would not prevent any state 

(one with an EPA-approved SIP revision 

or without) from submitting an 

alternative allocation methodology 

under this proposed rule for later 

compliance years. EPA requests 

comment on this modified allocation 

approach for states with EPA-approved 

SIP revisions under the current rule. 

b. Allocations for New Units 

For the purpose of allocations, CSAPR 

identifies a ‘‘new unit’’ as one that 

commenced commercial operation on or 

after January 1, 2010, and provides a 

methodology for allocating emission 

allowances to new units from new unit 

set-asides in each state and to new units 

that locate in Indian country. See 76 FR 

48290–48294 (Aug. 8, 2011), for more 

information. The FIPs that EPA is 

proposing will incorporate a trading 

program in which EPA is proposing to 

define a covered unit as a ‘‘new unit’’ 

if it commences commercial operation 

on or after January 1, 2015; if it becomes 

covered by meeting applicability criteria 

subsequent to January 1, 2015; if it 

relocates into a different state covered 

by this FIP; or if it was an ‘‘existing’’ 

covered unit that stopped operating for 

2 consecutive years but resumes 

commercial operation at some point 

thereafter. To the extent that states seek 

approval of SIPs with different 

allocation provisions than EPA, these 

SIPs may seek to define new units 

differently. 

The EPA further proposes that its 

trading program will make allocations to 

each state for new units (the new unit 

set-aside) equal to a basic minimum 2 

percent of the total state budget, plus 

the projected amount of emissions from 

planned units in that state (for instance, 

if planned units in state A are projected 

to emit 3 percent of the state’s NOX

ozone-season emissions budget, then the 

new unit set-aside for the state would be 

set at 5 percent, consisting of the basic 

minimum 2 percent plus an additional 

3 percent for planned units). See 76 FR 

48292. New units may receive 

allocations starting with the first year 

they are subject to the allowanceholding requirements of the rule. If 

unallocated to new units, set-asides are 

redistributed to unretired existing units 

before the compliance deadline. The 

EPA requests comments on following 

the CSAPR approach for new unit 

allocations under this proposal. (For 

more detail on the CSAPR new unit setaside provisions, see 40 CFR 97.511(b) 

and 97.512.) 

The EPA notes that applying the 

CSAPR approach using the data for this 

proposal results in a new-unit set-aside 

for New Jersey that is greater than 50% 

of the total proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budget for the state. 

This result is influenced by the EPA’s 

projected emissions rates for new units 

that are anticipated to come online 

within states. The EPA seeks comment 

on these data, which are available in the 

IPM documentation in the docket for 

this proposal. Further, the EPA seeks 

comment on whether additional data 

should be considered—for example, 

reported NOX emission rates of recently 

constructed new NGCC units in each 

state. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII.B–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON NEW-UNIT SET-ASIDE AMOUNTS, REFLECTING PROPOSED EGU 

EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TONS) 

State 

Proposed 

EGU NOX

emissions 

budgets 

(tons) 

New-unit setaside amount 

(percent) 

New-unit setaside amount 

(tons) 

Indian country 

set-aside 

amount 

(tons) 

Alabama ........................................................................................................... 9,979 2 205 

Arkansas .......................................................................................................... 6,949 2 141 

Illinois ............................................................................................................... 12,078 5 591 

Indiana ............................................................................................................. 28,284 2 565 

Iowa ................................................................................................................. 8,351 5 419 8 

Kansas ............................................................................................................. 9,272 3 281 9 

Kentucky .......................................................................................................... 21,519 3 647 

Louisiana .......................................................................................................... 15,807 4 628 16 

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 4,026 12 485 

Michigan ........................................................................................................... 19,115 2 382 19 

Mississippi ........................................................................................................ 5,910 10 590 6 

Missouri ............................................................................................................ 15,323 2 314 

New Jersey ...................................................................................................... 2,015 57 1,151 

New York ......................................................................................................... 4,450 2 93 4 

North Carolina .................................................................................................. 12,275 2 248 12

Ohio ................................................................................................................. 16,660 2 337 

Oklahoma ......................................................................................................... 16,215 2 325 16 

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 14,387 7 1,017 

Tennessee ....................................................................................................... 5,481 2 109 

Texas ............................................................................................................... 58,002 5 2,910 58 

Virginia ............................................................................................................. 6,818 27 1,844 

West Virginia .................................................................................................... 13,390 2 268 

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................... 5,561 2 121 6

23 State Region ........................................................................................ 311,867 ........................ 13,671 154 

c. Allocations for Tribes and New Units 

in Indian Country 

Tribes are not required to submit 

tribal implementation plans. However, 

as explained in the EPA’s regulations 

outlining Tribal Clean Air Act authority, 

the EPA is authorized to promulgate 

FIPs for Indian country as necessary or 

appropriate to protect air quality if a 

tribe does not submit and get EPA 

approval of a tribal implementation 

plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a); see also 42 

U.S.C. 7601(d)(4). For this proposed 

ozone rule, there are no existing affected 

units in Indian country in the states 

affected by this rule. 

Under the current rule, allowances to 

possible future new units locating in 

Indian country are allocated by the EPA 

from an Indian country new unit setaside established for each state with 

Indian country. (See 40 CFR 

97.511(b)(2) and 97.512(b).) Because 

states generally have no SIP authority in 

reservation areas of Indian country and 

other areas of Indian country over 

which a tribe or EPA has demonstrated 

that a tribe has jurisdiction, the EPA 

continues to allocate such allowances to 

sources locating in such areas of Indian 

country within a state even if the state 

submits a SIP to replace the FIP. (40 

CFR 52.38(b)(5)(v) and (vi) and 

52.38(b)(6).) The EPA reserves 0.1 

percent of the total state budget for new 

units in Indian country within that state 

(5 percent of the basic 2 percent new 

unit set-aside prior to any increase in a 

state’s new unit set-aside amount for 

planned units). Unallocated allowances 

from a state’s Indian country new unit 

set-aside are returned to the state’s new 

unit set-aside and allocated according to 

the methodology described above. The 

EPA requests comment on following the 

CSAPR approach for new unit 

allocations in such areas of Indian 

country under the transport rule for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

d. Units That Do Not Operate and the 

New Unit Set-Aside 

The EPA proposes to continue to 

apply for purposes of this proposed rule 

the existing CSAPR provision under 

which a covered unit that does not 

operate for a period of two consecutive 

years will receive allowance allocations 

for a total of up to five years of nonoperation. 40 CFR 97.511(a)(2). Starting 

in the fifth year after the first year of 

non-operation, allowances allocated to 

such units will instead be allocated to 

the new unit set-aside for the state in 

which the non-operating unit is located. 

This approach allows the new unit setasides to grow over time. The EPA 

requests comment on retaining this 

timeline for allowance allocation for 

non-operating units or changing the 

allowance allocation for non-operating 

units to, for instance, two years or three 

years, in which case allowances would 

revert to the new unit set-aside in the 

second or third year after the first of two 

consecutive years of non-operation of a 

unit. 

4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, 

and Penalties 

In the original CSAPR, the EPA 

developed assurance provisions, 

including variability limits and 

assurance levels (with associated 

compliance penalties), to assure that 

each state will meet its pollution control 

obligations and to accommodate 

inherent year-to-year variability in statelevel EGU operations. 

The original CSAPR budgets, and the 

updated CSAPR emissions budgets 

proposed in this notice, reflect EGU 

operations in an ‘‘average year.’’ 

However, year-to-year variability in 

EGU operations occurs due to the 

interconnected nature of the power 

sector and from changing weather 

patterns, demand growth, or disruptions 

in electricity supply from other units or 

from the transmission grid. Recognizing 

this, the FIP includes variability limits, 

which define the amount by which state 

emissions may exceed the level of the 

budgets in a given year to account for 

this variability in EGU operations. A 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75745 

104 531 F.3d at 908. 

state’s budget plus its variability limit 

equals a state’s assurance level, which 

acts as a cap on each state’s NOX

emissions during a control period (that 

is, during the May-September ozone 

season in the case of this rule). 

To establish the variability limits in 

the original CSAPR, the EPA analyzed 

historical state-level heat input 

variability as a proxy for emissions 

variability, assuming constant emission 

rates. (See 76 FR 48265, August 8, 

2011.) The variability limits for ozoneseason NOX in the original CSAPR were 

calculated as 21 percent of each state’s 

budget, and these variability limits were 

then codified in 40 CFR 97.510 along 

with the state budgets. Applying the 

CSAPR approach, the EPA proposes to 

set new variability limits applying the 

same 21 percent figure as determined in 

the original CSAPR to this proposed 

rule’s budgets. The EPA proposes that 

the same 21% figure is appropriate to 

use because variability in state-level 

heat input across a multi-year period is 

expected to be relatively consistent 

around long-term trends. The EPA seeks 

comment on this approach. Table VII.B– 

2 shows the proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, variability 

limits, and assurance levels for each 

state. 

TABLE VII.B–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION

AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON, VARIABILITY LIMITS, AND ASSURANCE LEVELS (TONS) 

State 

EGU NOX

ozone-season 

emissions 

budgets 

Variability 

limits 

EGU NOX

ozone-season 

assurance 

levels 

Alabama ........................................................................................................................... 9,979 2,096 12,075 

Arkansas .......................................................................................................................... 6,949 1,459 8,408 

Illinois ............................................................................................................................... 12,078 2,536 14,614 

Indiana ............................................................................................................................. 28,284 5,940 34,224 

Iowa ................................................................................................................................. 8,351 1,754 10,105 

Kansas ............................................................................................................................. 9,272 1,947 11,219 

Kentucky .......................................................................................................................... 21,519 4,519 26,038 

Louisiana .......................................................................................................................... 15,807 3,319 19,126 

Maryland .......................................................................................................................... 4,026 845 4,871 

Michigan ........................................................................................................................... 19,115 4,014 23,129 

Mississippi ........................................................................................................................ 5,910 1,241 7,151 

Missouri ............................................................................................................................ 15,323 3,218 18,541 

New Jersey ...................................................................................................................... 2,015 423 2,438 

New York ......................................................................................................................... 4,450 935 5,385 

North Carolina .................................................................................................................. 12,275 2,578 14,853 

Ohio ................................................................................................................................. 16,660 3,499 20,159 

Oklahoma ......................................................................................................................... 16,215 3,405 19,620 

Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................... 14,387 3,021 17,408 

Tennessee ....................................................................................................................... 5,481 1,151 6,632 

Texas ............................................................................................................................... 58,002 12,180 70,182 

Virginia ............................................................................................................................. 6,818 1,432 8,250 

West Virginia .................................................................................................................... 13,390 2,812 16,202 

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................... 5,561 1,168 6,729 

Region cap ............................................................................................................... 311,867 65,493 ............................

The assurance provisions include 

penalties that are triggered when the 

state emissions as a whole exceed its 

assurance level. The original CSAPR 

provided that a state that exceeds its 

assurance level in a given year is 

assessed a total of 3-to-1 allowance 

surrender on the excess tons. Each 

excess ton above the assurance level 

must be met with one allowance for 

normal compliance plus two additional 

allowances to satisfy the penalty. The 

penalty is designed to deter state-level 

emissions from exceeding assurance 

levels. This was referred to in the 

original CSAPR as air quality-assured 

trading that accounts for variability in 

the electricity sector but also ensures 

that the necessary emission reductions 

occur within each covered state. If a 

state does not exceed its assurance level, 

no penalties are incurred by any source. 

Establishing assurance levels with 

compliance penalties therefore responds 

to the court’s holding in North Carolina 

requiring the EPA to assure that sources 

in each state were required to eliminate 

emissions that significantly contribute 

to nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state.104

To assess the penalty under the 

assurance provisions, the EPA evaluates 

whether any state’s total EGU emissions 

in a control period exceeded the state’s 

assurance level, and if so, the EPA then 

determines which owners and operators 

of units in the state will be subject to an 

allowance surrender requirement based 

on each source’s emissions as compared 

to its unit-level assurance level. Since a 

single designated representative (DR) 

often represents multiple sources, the 

EPA evaluates which groups of units at 

the common DR level had emissions 

exceeding the respective common DR’s 

share of the state assurance level, 

regardless of whether the individual 

source had enough allowances to cover 

its emissions during the control period. 

This provision is triggered only if two 

criteria are met: (1) The group of sources 

and units with a common DR are 

located in a state where the total state 

EGU emissions for a control period 

exceed the state assurance level; and (2) 

that group with the common DR had 

emissions exceeding the respective DR’s 

share of the state assurance level. 

For more information on the CSAPR 

assurance provisions see 76 FR 48294 

(August 8, 2011). 

5. Implementation Approaches for 

Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX

Ozone-Season Program To Address 

Transport for a Newer NAAQS 

Consistent with the original CSAPR 

approach, EPA proposes that in this 

updated rulemaking, EGUs would be 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

105This data analysis relies on 40 CFR part 75 

emissions reporting data as available in EPA Air 

Markets Program Data available at http://

ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 

able to trade NOX ozone-season 

emission allowances among units 

within the state and across state 

boundaries, with emissions and use of 

allowances limited by the assurance 

provisions. The following sections 

describe approaches to transition the 

existing CSAPR program designed for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

A primary focus of this section is the 

extent to which allowances created to 

address interstate transport with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, reflecting 

emissions budgets at $500 per ton, are 

fungible with allowances created under 

this proposal to address interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

reflecting emissions budgets at $1,300 

per ton. The EPA proposes that these 

implementation tools are not 

presumptively equivalent, given that 

they were developed to address ozone 

transport under different NAAQS and 

using different cost thresholds. 

However, as further discussed below, 

the EPA is proposing approaches under 

which allowances allocated under 

budgets established to address the 1997 

NAAQS could be used for compliance 

for addressing interstate transport for 

the 2008 NAAQS, subject to specific 

limitations. The EPA is also taking 

comment on several other approaches 

for addressing the transition from a 

program in which all budgets were 

established based on an integrated 

analysis using a single control cost 

threshold to address the 1997 NAAQS 

to a program with a mix of budgets 

established in independent analyses 

using different control cost thresholds, 

in some cases to address the 1997 

NAAQS and in other cases to address 

the 2008 NAAQS. 

a. Use of CSAPR Ozone-season Trading 

Program Bank in the Transport Rule for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Trading 

Program 

Since CSAPR was promulgated in 

2011, the U.S. electric sector has 

undergone considerable transformation 

primarily due to economic and market 

forces precipitated by the natural gas 

boom. For example, Henry Hub natural 

gas prices reached below $2.00 per 

million BTU in 2012 and were in the 

$2.00–$3.00 range for most of 2012. 

These prices are below the level initially 

anticipated when establishing the phase 

1 and 2 budgets, and have made the 

operation of lower emitting units more 

competitive, putting more downward 

pressure on emissions. There has also 

been turnover in the power generation 

fleet as newer, lower emitting sources 

replace older, higher emitting sources, 

putting further downward pressure on 

emissions. Approximately 28.5 GW of 

coal units retired from the fleet between 

2012 and June of 2015. In addition, 

demand growth has slowed; a majority 

of U.S. states have implemented 

renewable portfolio standards and other 

energy efficiency programs; and highefficiency building designs, residential 

energy conservation, roof-top solar, and 

other forms of distributed generation 

have grown. In combination, these 

factors have significantly reduced EGU 

NOX emissions between 2012 and 2015. 

As a result of protracted litigation, 

CSAPR implementation was delayed by 

three years, from 2012 to 2015. Due to 

this delay, combined with the market 

forces and changes that took place 

during that timeframe, expectations are 

that total banked allowances for the 

CSAPR ozone-season trading program 

could be in excess of 210,000 tons by 

the start of the 2017 ozone-season 

compliance period, which is more than 

twice the emission reduction potential 

estimated at the $1,300 per ton control 

level described in section VI above. This 

number was estimated by comparing 

recent measured emission levels to the 

original CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

phase 1 emissions budgets, assuming 

EGU emissions in CSAPR NOX ozoneseason states for 2015 and 2016 would 

continue at 2014 levels.105

The use of allowance banks generally 

provide a glide path for sources required 

to meet more stringent emission limits 

in later years and accommodate year-toyear variability in operation. However, 

allowing unrestricted use of the large 

number of banked allowances for 

compliance with this proposed rule 

could result in regional 2017 ozone 

season NOX emissions that exceed the 

collective state budgets quantified in 

this rulemaking to address transported 

air pollution with respect to the 2008 

ozone standard. While the assurance 

provisions included in CSAPR do limit 

the ultimate amount of pollution that 

may occur in these states in 2017 (i.e., 

no matter how large an allowance bank 

may exist, only a portion of that bank 

may be used in a state in any given year 

without exceeding the assurance levels 

and incurring penalties), unrestricted 

use of the bank in this situation could 

allow emissions to exceed the state 

budgets, up to the assurance level, year 

after year. 

As described in CSAPR, the flexibility 

provided by the assurance provisions is 

not designed to be used repeatedly, year 

after year. Rather, the use of banked 

allowances is intended to be limited by 

binding emissions budgets such that 

drawing down the bank in one year is 

only possible because of actions taken to 

build up the bank in a previous year. 

Moreover, a relatively large allowance 

bank that enables emissions budgets to 

be exceeded year after year may 

encourage sources to postpone emission 

reductions that would be more timely in 

the 2017 timeframe in order to align 

reductions with the downwind area 

attainment dates for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The EPA is proposing and taking 

comment on a range of options for how 

to treat the use of banked 2015 and 2016 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances 

by units in the 23 states with new or 

updated budgets in this proposal. The 

use of banked allowances by states that 

are not included in the proposed FIPs to 

address ozone transport under the 2008 

NAAQS (i.e., Georgia for CSAPR NOX

ozone-season program and all states for 

CSAPR SO2 and NOX annual programs) 

would not be affected by these options. 

The EPA is proposing that allowances 

issued for compliance in 2015 and 2016 

under CSAPR may be used for 

compliance under the updated CSAPR 

from 2017 forward in order to smooth 

implementation in the first few years 

under the new budgets. However, the 

EPA is proposing to impose certain 

limits on the use of these banked 

allowances starting in 2017. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

sources in the 23 states with new or 

updated budgets in this proposal may 

use all of their banked allowances, but 

at a tonnage authorization level 

significantly lower than one ton per 

allowance. This would be realized 

through a surrender ratio greater than 

one pre-2017 allowances (vintage 2015 

or 2016) to cover one ton of NOX

emitted in 2017 and each year 

thereafter. The surrender ratio, such as 

four-for-one or two-for-one, would 

require more than one pre-2017 banked 

allowance to be used for each ton of 

ozone season NOX emitted in 2017 and 

beyond. This would have the dual effect 

of carrying over the banked allowances 

into the new program to promote 

program continuity, while also 

recognizing the environmental 

objectives of the updated ozone NAAQS 

for 2008 and the corresponding new 

state emission budgets designed to help 

move air quality towards compliance 

with that NAAQS standard. A surrender 

ratio would respect the flexibility of 

sources to operate at their assurance 

levels in the program’s early years, but 

would reduce the ability for the 

collective EGU fleet to repeatedly 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75747 

exceed the emissions budget year after 

year. 

Finally, EPA believes a surrender 

ratio is appropriate as it reflects the fact 

that tighter budgets will put upward 

pressure on allowance value in the 

future. Therefore, fewer allowances will 

be needed to reach the same value of a 

current allowance holding, making a 

surrender ratio a natural complement to 

carrying over the value of the banked 

allowances in a program where more 

stringent emission budgets are replacing 

less stringent emission budgets. 

EPA is proposing a surrender ratio 

greater than one-for-one, such as twofor-one or four-for-one. For analytic 

purposes in this rulemaking, it reflects 

the four-for-one surrender ratio to 

illustrate one potential surrender ratio. 

However, in the final rule, EPA would 

update this assumption to reflect the 

surrender ratio finalized. 

This ratio of four or two banked 

allowances to one ton of emissions is 

derived from the ratio of the anticipated 

allowance bank in 2017 (approximately 

210,000 allowances) to the ozone season 

variability limit (i.e., the difference 

between the sum of the emissions 

budgets for all 23 states and the sum of 

the assurance levels for all 23 states; 

approximately 60,000 tons) or the ozone 

season variability limit multiplied by 

two (120,000 tons), rounded to the 

nearest whole number. The EPA 

identified this approach to limit the 

emissions impact of using banked 

allowances to the magnitude of all states 

emitting up to their assurance levels for 

one or two years. The variability limit 

respects the upper bound variation in 

emissions and load EPA would expect 

in any given year. Thus, the carryover 

of banked allowances equal to one or 

two years’ worth of variability limits 

provides the affected fleet with the 

ability to accommodate potential 

variation from the mean in its load and 

emission patterns in the first years of 

the program, while balancing the need 

to ensure that emissions are reduced, on 

average, to the level of the budgets and 

within the assurance levels in 

subsequent years. 

The EPA believes that a surrender 

ratio approach provides a means for the 

existing CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season 

allowances to retain some value, while 

appropriately mitigating the potential 

adverse impact of the allowance bank 

on the emission-reducing actions 

needed from affected units in states 

with obligations to address interstate 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The EPA seeks comment on a surrender 

ratio approach and on the use of a ratio, 

such as two-for-one or four-for-one, and 

whether an alternative ratio would be 

appropriate. 

The EPA is also soliciting comment 

on another approach that we believe 

could achieve these same goals (i.e., 

valuing the anticipated CSAPR 

allowance bank while promoting nearterm emission reductions). Under this 

alternative approach, the EPA would 

issue fewer allowances than the tons 

quantified in state budgets for the 23 

states affected by this rulemaking in the 

first three years of program 

implementation (i.e. 2017, 2018, and 

2019). This approach recognizes that 

2015 and 2016 allowances are available 

to sources for compliance and would 

allow use of those banked CSAPR NOX

ozone allowances at a one-to-one turnin ratio (i.e., one allowance is 

surrendered for one ton of emissions). 

By reducing overall allocations for a 

period of time, the impact of states 

using those banked allowances on 

emission levels would be mitigated. 

The EPA seeks comment on what 

percentage (below 100 percent) of 

allowances to issue, and over what 

number of years, under this alternative 

approach. As a specific example, the 

EPA seeks comment on implementing 

this approach in a manner such that the 

EPA would issue allowances to sources 

within each of the 23 states with 

updated budgets under this proposal at 

a level of 85 percent of the proposed 

emissions budgets for the first three 

years that the new budgets are effective. 

Using the proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budget of 9,979 tons 

for Alabama as an example, this would 

mean issuing approximately 8,482 

allowances for each of the 2017 through 

2019 (inclusive) control periods (and 

the full budget for each subsequent 

control period). Applying this approach 

to all 23 states with updated budgets 

under this proposal (which sum to 

312,824 allowances) would mean that 

EPA would issue approximately 266,900 

allowances across those states in each of 

the 2017, 2018, and 2019 control 

periods. EGUs in those states would be 

able to use allowances from the 

anticipated 210,000 allowance bank in 

addition to allowances issued for these 

years in order to comply with the 

updated CSAPR emission requirements. 

Allocating approximately 266,900 

allowances for the first three years of the 

updated requirements would, based on 

current estimates, result in 

approximately 47,000 banked 

allowances used for compliance each 

year. This would leave approximately 

70,000 banked allowances, which is 

roughly equivalent to the regional 

variability limit (i.e., the difference 

between the states’ collective emissions 

budgets and their collective assurance 

levels). As under the illustrative fourfor-one surrender ratio option, the 

remaining amount of banked allowances 

that would remain after using this initial 

reduced allocation is approximately the 

amount of banked allowances that 

would allow all states to emit up to their 

assurance levels for one year. 

The EPA also seeks comment on what 

other percentages of the budget and 

time-frames could be appropriately used 

to implement this alternative approach. 

As in the specific example above, the 

EPA would seek a combination of time 

and recordation percentage such that 

the ultimate influence of the anticipated 

allowance bank is limited to 

approximately the regional variability 

limit (i.e., the difference between the 

collective emissions budgets and the 

collective assurance levels). 

Under either approach, the EPA 

would conduct unit-level allowance 

allocations in the same manner as 

described above, such that each unit’s 

share of its state’s total allowances 

issued is determined by that allocation 

approach whether the EPA issues 

allowances in the full amount of the 

state budget with a surrender ratio for 

banked allowances or in a lesser amount 

to address the potential effect of the 

allowance bank (as entertained in this 

alternative on which we are inviting 

comment). In other words, the effect of 

this alternative approach would be to 

reduce unit-level allowance allocations 

in those years in a proportional manner 

(e.g., all unit-level allowance allocations 

would decrease by the same percentage 

as the reduction in total allowances 

issued below that state’s budget). 

Additionally, the EPA is soliciting 

comment on less and more restrictive 

approaches to address use of the CSAPR 

EGU NOX ozone allowance bank. 

Specifically, the EPA seeks comment 

on: (1) Allowing banked 2015 and 2016 

CSAPR NOX ozone allowances to be 

used for compliance with the proposed 

budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

starting in 2017 at a 1-to-1 ratio, or (2) 

completely disallowing the use of 

banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX

ozone allowances for compliance with 

the proposed budgets for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS starting in 2017. The EPA is 

also soliciting comment on whether and 

how the assurance provision penalty 

might be increased, in conjunction with 

any of the above approaches, to address 

the relationship of the allowance bank 

to emissions occurring under this 

revised program from 2017 onward. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

106 76 FR at 48263–64. 

B. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season 

Allowances From States Addressing the 

1997 Ozone NAAQS for Compliance in 

States Addressing the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

Consistent with the original CSAPR, 

EGUs covered by the seasonal NOX

budget trading program that will be 

incorporated into these proposed FIPs 

are able to trade NOX ozone-season 

emission allowances among units 

within the state and across state 

boundaries, with emissions and the use 

of allowances limited by the assurance 

provisions. 

The EPA is considering how to 

transition allowance trading between 

the group of states that are in the CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season program with respect 

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS but will not 

have updated emissions budgets 

proposed in this action (e.g., Georgia 

based on this proposal) and the group of 

states for which the EPA is proposing to 

establish new or lower budgets to 

address the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this 

action. 

The EPA believes that, where 

appropriate and feasible, continuity of 

programs is important, particularly for 

market-based and other power sector 

regulations, as this sector makes longterm investment and operational 

decisions. However, CSAPR allowances 

issued under budgets established to 

address the 1997 ozone NAAQS using a 

$500 per ton cost threshold in one state 

may not be appropriately valued to 

reduce interstate ozone transport in 

another state for the 2008 NAAQS under 

this proposal where budgets are being 

established using a $1,300 per ton cost 

threshold. In the original CSAPR 

rulemaking, the EPA discussed the 

concern that allowing unrestricted 

trading between groups of states whose 

budgets were established using different 

cost thresholds would impact whether 

the necessary emission reductions 

would be achieved within each state.106

The assurance provisions used in 

CSAPR provide some assurance that 

emission reductions will occur within 

each state, but in the CSAPR rulemaking 

the EPA acknowledged concerns that 

the assurance provisions alone may not 

be sufficient. Consistent with those 

previously acknowledged concerns, the 

EPA is proposing in this rulemaking not 

to allow these two groups of states to 

trade without some additional 

assurances that the emission reductions 

will be appropriately achieved within 

each state. 

However, because of the relatively 

small size of the group of states with 

budgets set using the $500 per ton cost 

threshold, the EPA is not proposing to 

prohibit altogether trading between the 

two groups in this instance. The EPA 

does not expect that a single state (i.e., 

Georgia) would drastically influence 

emission reductions in the other 23 

states covered by this proposed rule. 

EPA is instead proposing to permit 

trading between the two groups of ozone 

states subject to certain restrictions on 

trading. In particular, the EPA is 

proposing to require that sources in 

states addressing the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS under this proposal may use 

allowances issued in states only 

addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS via 

the CSAPR trading programs (e.g., 

Georgia) at a rate of 2.5 allowances for 

each ton of NOX emitted. The EPA 

proposes a ratio of 2.5-to-1 in order to 

align with the ratio of the cost of ozone 

season EGU NOX reduction promulgated 

in the original CSAPR (i.e., $500 per 

ton) to the cost proposed for this 

rulemaking (i.e., $1,300 per ton). The 

EPA proposes this restriction as 

sufficient, in conjunction with the 

assurance provisions, to protect the 

needed reductions in the 23 states 

addressing interstate transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA requests 

comments on this approach. The EPA 

also seeks comment on using a different 

ratio than 2.5-to-1, and on using the 

same ratio as the ratio for the use of 

banked allowances, whether that ratio is 

4-to-1 as proposed or a different ratio. 

The EPA is also seeking comment on 

allowing trading without distinction 

between the particular NAAQS (1997 

ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS) 

for which an upwind state has 

obligations to reduce transported 

pollution, and subject only to the 

constraints of the CSAPR assurance 

provisions with no additional 

restrictions. The EPA is soliciting 

comment on whether and how the 

assurance provision penalty might be 

increased in conjunction with this 

approach. 

Alternatively, the EPA is seeking 

comment on separating compliance 

between groups of upwind states under 

each NAAQS, whereby the use of NOX

ozone-season emission allowances from 

one group (e.g., sources in states only 

covered for the 1997 ozone NAAQS) 

would be disallowed for compliance use 

by units in the other group (e.g., sources 

in states covered for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS), similar to the existing 

separation between the CSAPR SO2

Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

programs. 

C. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-season 

Allowances Between States With 

Different Control Stringencies 

Addressing the 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

As discussed in Section VI of this 

proposal, the EPA notes that the 

evaluation of EGU NOX requirements for 

the final rule could show one or more 

states fully addressing their good 

neighbor obligation based on ozone 

season NOX control requirements 

represented by one cost level while one 

or more other states have ozone season 

NOX control requirements based on a 

more stringent cost level. In this 

situation, the EPA proposes that it 

would quantify requirements for these 

different groups of states based on 

different uniform control stringencies. 

However, CSAPR allowances issued 

under budgets established using a one 

cost threshold (e.g., $1,300 per ton) in 

one state may not be appropriately 

valued to reduce interstate ozone 

transport in another state where budgets 

might be established using different cost 

threshold (e.g., $3,400 per ton). 

Consistent with the previous discussion 

(regarding allowances issued in states 

continuing to address the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS under budgets established 

using $500 per ton threshold), the EPA 

is proposing to permit trading between 

these groups of states subject to certain 

restrictions on trading. In particular, the 

EPA is proposing to require that sources 

in states with emissions budgets 

established using the more stringent 

cost thresholds (e.g., $3,400 per ton) 

may use allowances issued in states 

with emissions budgets established 

using the less stringent cost thresholds 

(e.g., $1,300 per ton) at a rate of 

allowances for each ton of NOX emitted 

based on the ratio of these cost 

thresholds. For example, states with 

emissions budgets established using 

$3,400 per ton could use allowances at 

a rate of approximately 2.5-to-1 in order 

to align with the ratio of the relevant 

cost thresholds. The EPA requests 

comments on allowing the states to 

trade with the proposed restrictions on 

the use of allowances by sources in 

states controlled using the more 

stringent cost threshold. 

The EPA is also seeking comment on 

allowing trading without distinction 

between the particular cost thresholds 

for which an upwind state has 

obligations to reduce transported 

pollution, and subject only to the 

constraints of the CSAPR assurance 

provisions with no additional 

restrictions. The EPA is also soliciting 

comment on whether and how the 

assurance provision penalty might be 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75749 

107 In the regulatory text revisions for this 

proposal, the proposed limits discussed here are 

described in terms of the ‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ of 

an allowance. In the case of 2015 or 2016 vintage 

allowances used for compliance in a control period 

in 2017 or later, where 4 allowances would be 

needed for each ton of emissions, each such 

allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.25 

tons per allowance (1⁄4 = 0.25). In the case of 2017 

or later allowances from a state with an original 

CSAPR budget used for compliance by a unit in a 

state with an updated budget based on the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, where 2.5 allowances would be 

needed for each ton of emissions, each such 

allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.40 

tons per allowance (1⁄2.5 = 0.40). In a case where one 

allowance is needed for each ton of emissions, such 

allowances would have a tonnage equivalent of one 

ton per allowance. See proposed 40 CFR 97.524(f) 

in the regulatory text for this proposal. 

increased in conjunction with this 

approach. 

Alternatively, the EPA is seeking 

comment on separating compliance 

between groups of upwind states under 

each cost threshold, whereby the use of 

NOX ozone-season emission allowances 

from one group (e.g., sources in states 

with allowances issued using the more 

stringent cost threshold) would be 

disallowed for compliance use by units 

in the other group, similar to the 

existing separation between the CSAPR 

SO2 Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

programs. 

D. Summary of Proposed Allowance 

Surrender Ratios 

As discussed in sections a. and b. 

above, the EPA proposes that in this 

updated rulemaking, EGUs would be 

able to trade NOX ozone-season 

emission allowances among units 

within the state and across state 

boundaries, with emissions and use of 

allowances limited by the assurance 

provisions. However, the EPA is 

proposing to impose certain additional 

limits on the use of allowances starting 

in 2017 for EGUs in the 23 states with 

updated budgets in this proposal. Table 

VII–2 summarizes the limits on the 

proposed use for CSAPR NOX ozoneseason allowances.107

6. Compliance Deadlines 

As discussed in sections II.A., III.B., 

and IV.A., the proposed rule would 

require NOX reductions from sources 

starting May 1, 2017, to ensure that 

reductions are made as expeditiously as 

practicable to assist downwind states’ 

attainment and maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The compliance 

deadline is coordinated with the 

attainment deadline for the relevant 

NAAQS and the proposed rule includes 

provisions to assure that all necessary 

reductions occur at sources within each 

individual state. 

In section VI above, the EPA explains 

that this is an adequate and reasonable 

time for sources to plan for compliance 

and operate necessary controls. 

For states for which EPA has already 

established a FIP requiring their units to 

participate in the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program because of 

transport obligations under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS, no CFR changes are 

necessary to accommodate this 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03DE15.001</GPH>
75750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

compliance deadline. The EPA proposes 

to amend the regulatory text in 40 CFR 

97.506(c)(3) to reflect the 2017 start of 

compliance obligations for units in 

states that were not previously subject 

to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading 

program (e.g., Kansas). The EPA also 

proposes to amend various FIP 

provisions in 40 CFR part 52 to indicate 

the start and end of compliance 

obligations under the FIPs for sources in 

states added to the trading program 

under this proposed rule (e.g., Kansas) 

or removed from the trading program in 

response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of 

certain NOX ozone-season emissions 

budgets (e.g., Florida and South 

Carolina). 

7. Monitoring and Reporting and the 

Allowance Management System 

Monitoring and reporting in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR part 75 are required for all units 

subject to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

trading programs and would also be 

required for all units covered under the 

proposed transport rule for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS requirements. The EPA 

proposes that the monitoring 

certification deadline by which 

monitors are installed and certified for 

compliance use generally would be May 

1, 2017, the beginning of the first 

compliance period proposed in this 

rule, with potentially later deadlines for 

units that commence commercial 

operation after July 1, 2016. Similarly, 

the EPA proposes that the first calendar 

quarter in which quarterly emission 

reporting is required would generally be 

the quarter including May 1, 2017. 

These deadlines are analogous to the 

current deadlines under CSAPR but are 

delayed by two years to reflect the fact 

that this rule’s initial implementation 

year would be two years later than the 

existing CSAPR programs’ initial 

implementation year. 

Under part 75, a unit has several 

options for monitoring and reporting, 

namely the use of a CEMS; an excepted 

monitoring methodology based in part 

on fuel flow metering for certain gas- or 

oil-fired peaking units; low-mass 

emissions monitoring for certain noncoal-fired, low emitting units; or an 

alternative monitoring system approved 

by the Administrator through a petition 

process. In addition, sources can submit 

petitions to the Administrator for 

alternatives to specific CSAPR and part 

75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. Each CEMS 

must undergo rigorous initial 

certification testing and periodic quality 

assurance testing thereafter, including 

the use of relative accuracy test audits 

(RATAs) and 24-hour calibrations. In 

addition, when a monitoring system is 

not operating properly, standard 

substitute data procedures are applied 

and result in a conservative estimate of 

emissions for the period involved. 

Further, part 75 requires electronic 

submission of a quarterly emissions 

report to the Administrator, and in a 

format prescribed by the Administrator. 

The report would contain all of the data 

required concerning ozone season NOX

emissions. 

Units currently subject to CSAPR NOX

ozone-season or CSAPR NOX annual 

trading program requirements monitor 

and report NOX emissions in accordance 

with part 75, so most sources would not 

have to make any changes to monitoring 

and reporting practices. In fact, only 

units in Kansas currently subject to the 

CSAPR NOX annual trading program but 

not the CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

trading program would need to start 

newly reporting ozone season NOX mass 

emissions. These emissions are already 

measured under the annual program, so 

the change would be a minor reporting 

modification. Units in the following 

states monitor and report NOX

emissions under the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program and would 

continue to do so without change under 

the CSAPR ozone update for the 2008 

NAAQS: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

8. Recordation of Allowances 

The EPA proposes to update the 

deadlines by which EPA would record 

allowances for the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program for the 

compliance periods in the years from 

2017 through 2022. The proposed new 

dates would amend the recordation 

deadlines in 40 CFR 97.521 as shown in 

the proposed regulatory text 

amendments at the end of this proposal. 

The existing recordation provisions 

require EPA to record either FIP-based 

(i.e., governed by part 97) or SIP-based 

allocations for 2017 and 2018 by July 1, 

2016. The EPA proposes to delay this 

deadline to December 1, 2016. The 

extension would allow EPA to finalize 

any changes to the state budgets for the 

2017 compliance period before 

recording 2017 allowances. This would 

prevent the need to take back 

allowances that were recorded under 

existing budgets in cases where state 

budgets are reduced. The extended 

deadline would still allow allocations to 

be recorded five months prior to the 

start of the 2017 compliance period, 

giving affected units time to make 

compliance plans. Compliance true-up 

for the 2017 ozone season occurs after 

December 1, 2017, so affected sources 

would have more than a year from the 

extended recordation deadline to ensure 

they hold enough allowances for 2017 

ozone season compliance. The EPA is 

taking comment on this new deadline 

for 2017 and 2018 allowance allocation 

recordation. The EPA is also taking 

comment on whether the provision to 

delay 2017 and 2018 allocation 

recordation should be finalized ahead of 

final action on this full proposal if this 

proposal is not finalized before July 1, 

2016. 

The EPA is also proposing to extend 

the existing deadlines for recording 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances 

for the 2019 and 2020 compliance 

periods and for the 2021 and 2022 

compliance periods each by one year, to 

July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, 

respectively. The purpose of these 

proposed deadline extensions is to 

provide time for states to submit SIP 

revisions to modify or replace the FIPs 

proposed in this rulemaking on 

schedules comparable to the schedules 

for the SIP revision options that the 

states have under the current CSAPR 

regulations. The EPA seeks comment on 

extending these recordation deadlines 

as discussed. 

C. Submitting a SIP 

As noted earlier in this section VIII, 

states may replace the FIP with a SIP at 

any time if approved by the EPA. 

‘‘Abbreviated’’ and ‘‘full’’ SIP options 

continue to be available. An 

‘‘abbreviated SIP’’ allows a state to 

submit a SIP that would modify 

allocation provisions in the NOX budget 

trading program that is incorporated 

into FIP to allow the state to substitute 

its own allocation provisions. A second 

approach, referred to as a full SIP, 

allows a state to adopt a trading program 

meeting certain requirements that 

would allow sources in the state to 

continue to use the EPA-administered 

trading program through an approved 

SIP, rather than a FIP. In addition, as 

under CSAPR, EPA proposes to provide 

states with an opportunity to adopt 

state-determined allowance allocations 

for existing units for the second 

compliance period under this proposed 

rule—in this case, the 2018 compliance 

period—through streamlined SIP 

revisions. See 76 FR 48208 at 48326– 

48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional 

discussion on full and abbreviated SIP 

options and 40 CFR 52.38(b). 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75751 

108The EPA notes that the SIP is not required to 

include modeling. 

1. 2018 SIP Option 

As under CSAPR, the EPA proposes to 

allow a state to submit a SIP revision 

establishing allowance allocations for 

existing units for the second year of the 

new requirements, 2018, to replace the 

FIP-based allocations. The process 

would be the same as under the current 

rule with deadlines shifted roughly 2 

years—i.e., a state would submit a letter 

to EPA by November 15, 2016 indicating 

its intent to submit a complete SIP 

revision by April 1, 2017. The SIP 

would provide in an EPA-prescribed 

format a list of existing units and their 

allocations for the 2018 control period. 

If a state does not submit a letter of 

intent to submit a SIP revision, FIP 

allocations would be recorded by 

December 1, 2016. If a state submits a 

timely letter of intent but fails to submit 

a SIP revision, FIP allocations would be 

recorded by April 1, 2017. If a state 

submits a timely letter of intent 

followed by a timely SIP revision that is 

approved, the approved SIP allocations 

would be recorded by October 1, 2017. 

2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option 

For the 2019 control period and later, 

EPA proposes that the SIP submittal 

deadline be delayed one year, until 

December 1, 2017, from the current 

deadline. The deadline to then submit 

state allocations for 2019 and 2020 

would be June 1, 2018 and the deadline 

to record those allocations would be 

July 1, 2018. Under the proposed new 

deadlines, a state could submit a SIP 

revision for 2021 and beyond control 

periods by December 1, 2018, with state 

allocations due June 1, 2019, and 

allocation recordation by July 1, 2019. 

For 2019 control period and later, SIPs 

can be full or abbreviated SIPs. An 

allocation methodology approved in an 

abbreviated SIP submitted for 2017 

under the existing CSAPR regulations 

could also apply under the proposed 

new rule in 2017 and 2018. See section 

III of this preamble and 76 FR 48208 at 

48326–48332 (August 8, 2011) for 

additional discussion on full and 

abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR 

52.38(b). 

3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the 

CSAPR Trading Program 

For a transport SIP revision that does 

not use the CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

trading program, EPA would evaluate 

the transport SIP based on the particular 

control strategies selected and whether 

the strategies as a whole provide 

adequate and enforceable provisions 

ensuring that the emission reductions 

will be achieved. The SIP revision at a 

minimum should include the following 

general elements: (1) A comprehensive 

baseline 2017 statewide NOX emission 

inventory (which includes growth and 

existing control requirements), which 

should be consistent with the 2017 

emission inventory the EPA would use 

when finalizing this rulemaking to 

calculate the required state budget; (2) a 

list and description of control measures 

to satisfy the state emission reduction 

obligation and a demonstration showing 

when each measure would be in place 

to meet the 2017 compliance date; (3) 

fully-adopted state rules providing for 

such NOX controls during the ozone 

season; (4) for EGUs greater than 25 

MWe and large boilers and combustion 

turbines with a rated heat input capacity 

of 250 mmBtu per hour or greater, Part 

75 monitoring, and for other units, 

monitoring and reporting procedures 

sufficient to demonstrate that sources 

are complying with the SIP; and (5) a 

projected inventory demonstrating that 

state measures along with federal 

measures will achieve the necessary 

emission reductions in time to meet the 

2017 compliance deadline.108 The SIPs 

must meet the requirements for public 

hearing, be adopted by the appropriate 

board or authority, and establish by a 

practically enforceable regulation or 

permit a schedule and date for each 

affected source or source category to 

achieve compliance. Once the state has 

made a SIP submission, the EPA will 

evaluate the submission(s) for 

completeness. The EPA’s criteria for 

determining completeness of a SIP 

submission are codified at 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. 

For further information on replacing a 

FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the 

final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326, 

August 8, 2011). The EPA requests 

comment on what types of additional 

information and guidance would be 

helpful and stands ready to assist states 

in SIP development. 

4. Submitting a SIP To Participate in 

CSAPR for States Not Included in This 

Proposal 

The EPA believes that there could be 

circumstances where a state that is not 

obligated to reduce NOX emissions in 

order to eliminate significant 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance of ozone 

standards in another state (such as 

Florida or South Carolina for purposes 

of this proposal) may wish to participate 

in the NOX ozone-season trading 

program in order to serve a different 

regulatory purpose. For example, the 

state may have a pending request for 

redesignation of an area to attainment 

that relies on participation in the 

trading program as part of the state’s 

demonstration that emissions will not 

exceed certain levels, or the state may 

wish to rely on participation in the 

trading program for purposes of a SIP 

revision to satisfy certain obligations 

under the Regional Haze Rule. The EPA 

seeks comment on whether the EPA 

should revise the CSAPR regulations to 

allow the EPA to approve a SIP revision 

in which a state seeks to participate in 

the NOX ozone-season trading program 

for a purpose other than addressing 

ozone transport obligations. 

Further, the EPA seeks comment on 

the conditions that should apply to any 

such approval in order to ensure that 

the state’s participation is consistent 

with the trading program’s ability to 

achieve the program’s objectives with 

respect to interstate transport of ozone 

pollution. The EPA believes that the 

primary conditions for consideration in 

this circumstance would be the level of 

the state emissions budget and what, if 

any, limitations would be placed on the 

use of allowances issued to the sources 

in that state by sources in other states. 

The EPA specifically seeks comment 

on whether a presumption of 

approvability of such a SIP revision 

should arise, without limitations on the 

use of corresponding allowances for 

compliance by sources within that state 

or in other states, if the state would 

adopt as part of the SIP revision a NOX

ozone-season emissions budget no 

higher than the emissions budgets that 

the EPA finalizes under this rule. For 

example, based on this proposal, an 

emissions budget that reflects EGU NOX

mitigation strategies represented by a 

uniform cost of $1,300 per ton. The EPA 

notes that such emissions budgets could 

be developed using the data and 

analysis used to establish the emissions 

budgets for this rule. 

EPA also specifically seeks comment 

on whether a presumption of 

approvability of such a SIP revision 

should arise, with limitations on the use 

of allowances issued to the state’s 

sources analogous to the limitations 

proposed for allowances issued to 

Georgia’s units in this proposed rule, if 

the state would adopt as part of the SIP 

revision a NOX ozone-season emissions 

budget no higher than the base case 

ozone season NOX emissions that EPA 

projected for the state in the analysis 

used to establish the emissions budgets 

for this proposed rule. 

The EPA also specifically seeks 

comment on whether, in the case of a 

state previously subject to the CSAPR 

NOX ozone-season trading program (e.g., 

Florida or South Carolina), a 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

109Part 70 addresses requirements for state title 

V programs, and part 71 governs the federal title V 

program. 

110EPA also issued a guidance document and 

template that includes instructions describing how 

to incorporate the CSAPR applicable requirements 

into a source’s title V permit. http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_Title_V_Permit_

Guidance.pdf. 

111http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/part-75- 

petition-responses. 

presumption of approvability of such a 

SIP revision should arise at an 

emissions level higher than the state’s 

base case emissions in the analysis used 

to establish the emissions budgets for 

this proposed rule—for example, an 

emissions level equal to the state’s 

previously promulgated CSAPR 

budget—subject to the imposition of 

trading limitations on allowances issued 

to the state’s units analogous to the 

limitations proposed for allowances 

issued to Georgia’s units in this 

proposal. 

Finally, the EPA also seeks comment 

on whether a state whose allowances 

would otherwise be subject to 

limitations on use analogous to the 

limitations proposed for allowances 

issued to Georgia’s units in this 

proposed rule could avoid those 

limitations by adopting in a SIP revision 

a more stringent budget reflecting 

emission levels at higher dollar per ton 

emission reduction costs comparable to 

the dollar per ton emission reduction 

costs used to establish the budgets for 

other states in this proposed rule. 

D. Title V Permitting 

This proposed rule, like CSAPR, does 

not establish any permitting 

requirements independent of those 

under title V of the CAA and the 

regulations implementing title V, 40 

CFR parts 70 and 71.109 All major 

stationary sources of air pollution and 

certain other sources are required to 

apply for title V operating permits that 

include emission limitations and other 

conditions as necessary to assure 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of the CAA, including the 

requirements of the applicable State 

Implementation Plan. CAA sections 

502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a) 

and 7661c(a). The ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ that must be addressed in 

title V permits are defined in the title V 

regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 

(definition of ‘‘applicable 

requirement’’)). 

The EPA anticipates that, given the 

nature of the units subject to this 

transport rule and given that many of 

the units covered here are already 

subject to CSAPR, most of the sources 

at which the units are located are 

already subject to title V permitting 

requirements. For sources subject to title 

V, the interstate transport requirements 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would 

be applicable to them under the final 

FIPs will be ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

under title V and therefore will need to 

be addressed in the title V permits. For 

example, requirements concerning 

designated representatives, monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping, the 

requirement to hold allowances 

covering emissions, the assurance 

provisions, and liability will be 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ to be 

addressed in the permits. 

Title V of the CAA establishes the 

basic requirements for state title V 

permitting programs, including, among 

other things, provisions governing 

permit applications, permit content, and 

permit revisions that address applicable 

requirements under final FIPs in a 

manner that provides the flexibility 

necessary to implement market-based 

programs such as the trading programs 

established by CSAPR and updated by 

this proposed ozone interstate transport 

rule. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b). 

In CSAPR, EPA established standard 

requirements governing how sources 

covered by the rule would comply with 

title V and its regulations.110 40 CFR 

97.506(d). Under this proposed rule, 

EPA proposes that those same 

requirements would continue to apply 

to sources already in the CSAPR NOX

Ozone-season Trading Program and to 

any newly covered sources that have 

been added to address interstate 

transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For 

example, the title V regulations provide 

that a permit issued under title V must 

include ‘‘[a] provision stating that no 

permit revision shall be required under 

any approved . . . emissions trading 

and other similar programs or processes 

for changes that are provided for in the 

permit.’’ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8) and 

71.6(a)(8). Consistent with these 

provisions in the title V regulations, in 

CSAPR, EPA included a provision 

stating that no permit revision is 

necessary for the allocation, holding, 

deduction, or transfer of allowances. 40 

CFR 97.506(d)(1). This provision is also 

included in each title V permit for a 

covered source. The EPA proposes to 

maintain its approach under CSAPR 

that allowances can be traded (or 

allocated, held, or deducted) without a 

revision to the title V permit of any of 

the sources involved. 

Similarly, the EPA is also proposing 

to maintain that sources in the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone-season Trading Program can 

continue to use the title V minor 

modification procedure to change their 

approach for monitoring and reporting 

emissions, in certain circumstances. 

Specifically, sources may use the minor 

modification procedure so long as the 

new monitoring and reporting approach 

is one of the prior-approved approaches 

under CSAPR (i.e., approaches using a 

continuous emission monitoring system, 

an excepted monitoring system under 

appendices D and E to part 75, a low 

mass emissions excepted monitoring 

methodology under 40 CFR 75.19, or an 

alternative monitoring system under 

subpart E of part 75), and the permit 

already includes a description of the 

new monitoring and reporting approach 

to be used. See 40 CFR 97.506(d)(2); 40 

CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 40 CFR 

71.7(e)(1)(i)(B). As described in our 

2015 guidance, we suggest in our 

template that sources may comply with 

this requirement by including a table of 

all of the approved monitoring and 

reporting approaches under the rule, 

and the applicable requirements 

governing each of those approaches. 

Inclusion of the table in a source’s title 

V permit therefore allows a covered unit 

that seeks to change or add to their 

chosen monitoring and recordkeeping 

approach to easily comply with the 

regulations governing the use of the title 

V minor modification procedure. 

Under CSAPR, in order to employ a 

monitoring or reporting approach 

different from the prior-approved 

approaches discussed above, unit 

owners and operators must submit 

monitoring system certification 

applications to the EPA establishing the 

monitoring and reporting approach 

actually to be used by the unit, or, if the 

owners and operators choose to employ 

an alternative monitoring system, to 

submit petitions for that alternative to 

the EPA. These applications and 

petitions are subject to EPA review and 

approval to ensure consistency in 

monitoring and reporting among all 

trading program participants. The EPA’s 

responses to any petitions for alternative 

monitoring systems or for alternatives to 

specific monitoring or reporting 

requirements are posted on the EPA’s 

Web site.111 EPA proposes to maintain 

the same approach in this proposed 

rule. 

Consistent with the EPA’s approach 

under CSAPR, the applicable 

requirements resulting from this 

proposed FIP would be incorporated 

into covered sources’ existing title V 

permits either pursuant to the 

provisions for reopening for cause (40 

CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f)) or the 

standard permit renewal provisions (40 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75753 

112A permit is reopened for cause if any new 

applicable requirements (such as those under a FIP) 

become applicable to a covered source with a 

remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If the 

remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such 

new applicable requirements will be added to the 

permit during permit renewal. See 40 CFR 

70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I). 

113The CSAPR Annual Programs are referred to 

in regulations as the Transport Rule NOX Annual 

Trading Program (40 CFR 97.401–97.435), the 

Transport Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading Program (40 

CFR 97.601–97.635) and the Transport Rule SO2

Group 2 Trading Program (40 CFR 97.701–97.735). 

114CSAPR generally satisfies NOX SIP Call 

requirements for EGUs in most affected states 

because the CSAPR cap is lower than the EGU 

portion of the NOX SIP Call emission levels. 

115Affected sources continue to report ozone 

season emissions using part 75 as required by the 

NOX SIP Call and emissions in most states cannot 

(or are not likely to) exceed NOX SIP Call non-EGU 

budget levels. 

116EPA requests comment on the appropriate 

time period for this determination. 

CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)).112 For sources 

newly subject to title V that will also be 

covered sources under the final FIPs, 

the initial title V permit issued pursuant 

to 40 CFR 70.7(a) should address the 

final FIP requirements. 

As in CSAPR, the approach to title V 

permitting under the proposed FIPs 

imposes no independent permitting 

requirements and should reduce the 

burden on sources already required to 

be permitted under title V and on 

permitting authorities. 

E. Relationship to Other Emission 

Trading and Ozone Transport Programs 

1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR 113

Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain 

Program, NOX SIP Call, Section 176A 

Petition, and Other State 

Implementation Plans 

a. CSAPR Annual Programs 

Nothing in this proposal affects any 

CSAPR NOX annual or CSAPR SO2

Group 1 or CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

requirements. The CSAPR annual 

requirements were premised on the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that are 

not being addressed in this rulemaking. 

The CSAPR NOX annual trading 

program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 

and Group 2 trading programs remain in 

place and will continue to be 

administered by the EPA. 

The EPA acknowledges that, in 

addition to the ozone budgets discussed 

above, the D.C. Circuit has remanded for 

reconsideration the CSAPR SO2 budgets 

for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, 

and Texas. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d 

at 138. This proposal does not address 

the remand of these CSAPR phase 2 SO2

emissions budgets. The EPA intends to 

address the remand of the phase 2 SO2

annual emissions budgets separately. 

b. Title IV Interactions 

This proposed rule if adopted would 

not affect any Acid Rain Program 

requirements. Any Title IV sources that 

are subject to provisions of this 

proposed rule would still need to 

continue to comply with all Acid Rain 

provisions. Acid Rain Program SO2 and 

NOX requirements are established 

independently in Title IV of the Clean 

Air Act, and will continue to apply 

independently of this proposed rule’s 

provisions. Acid Rain sources will still 

be required to comply with Title IV 

requirements, including the requirement 

to hold Title IV allowances to cover SO2

emissions at the end of a compliance 

year. 

c. NOX SIP Call Interactions 

States affected by both the NOX SIP 

Call and any final CSAPR ozone update 

for the 2008 NAAQS will be required to 

comply with the requirements of both 

rules. This proposed rule requires NOX

ozone season emission reductions from 

EGUs greater than 25 MW in nearly all 

NOX SIP Call states and at levels greater 

than required by the NOX SIP Call. 

Therefore, this proposed rule would 

satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP 

Call for these large EGU units. 

The NOX SIP Call states used the NOX

Budget Trading Program to comply with 

the NOX SIP Call requirements for EGUs 

serving a generator with a nameplate 

capacity greater than 25 MW and large 

non-EGUs with a maximum rated heat 

input capacity greater than 250 

MMBTU/hr. (In some states, EGUs 

smaller than 25 MW were also part of 

the NBP as a carryover from the Ozone 

Transport Commission NOX Budget 

Trading Program.) When the EPA 

promulgated CAIR, it allowed states to 

modify that program and include all 

NOX Budget Trading Program units in 

the CAIR NOX Ozone-season Trading 

Program as a way to continue to meet 

the requirements of the NOX SIP Call for 

these sources. 

In CSAPR, however, the EPA allowed 

states to expand applicability of the 

trading program to EGUs smaller than 

25 MW but did not allow the expansion 

of applicability to include large nonEGU sources. The reason for excluding 

large non-EGU sources was largely that 

emissions from these sources were 

generally much lower than the budget 

amount and there was concern that 

surplus allowances created as a result of 

an overestimation of baseline emissions 

and subsequent shutdowns (since 1999 

when the NOX SIP Call was 

promulgated) would prevent needed 

reductions by the EGUs to address 

significant contribution to downwind 

air quality impacts. 

Since then, states have had to find 

appropriate ways to continue to show 

compliance with the NOX SIP Call, 

particularly for large non-EGUs.114 Most 

states that included such sources in 

CAIR are still working to find suitable 

solutions.115

Therefore, the EPA is taking comment 

on whether to allow any NOX SIP Call 

state affected by this proposed rule to 

voluntarily submit a SIP revision at a 

budget level that is environmentally 

neutral to address the state’s NOX SIP 

Call requirement for ozone season NOX

reductions. The SIP revision could 

include a rule to expand the 

applicability of the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program to include all 

NOX Budget Trading Program units. 

Analysis shows that these units (mainly 

large non-EGU boilers, combustion 

turbines, and combined cycle units with 

a maximum rated heat input capacity 

greater than 250 mmBtu/hr) continue to 

emit well below their portion of the 

NOX SIP Call budget. In order to ensure 

that the necessary amount of EGU 

emission reductions occur for this 

proposed rule, the corresponding state 

ozone-season emissions budget amount 

could be increased by the lesser of the 

highest ozone season NOX emissions (in 

the last 3–5 years) 116 from those units 

or the relevant non-EGU budget under 

the NOX SIP Call, and this small group 

of non-EGUs could participate in the 

CSAPR ozone-season trading program. 

The environmental impact would be 

neutral using this approach, and hourly 

reporting of emissions under part 75 

would continue. This approach would 

address requests by states for help in 

determining an appropriate way to 

address the continuing NOX SIP Call 

requirement as to non-EGU sources. 

EPA proposes that if this option is 

finalized that the variability limits 

established for EGUs be unchanged as a 

result of including these non-EGUs. The 

assurance provisions would apply to 

EGUs, and emissions from non-EGUs 

would not affect the assurance levels. 

The NOX SIP Call generally requires 

that states choosing to rely on large 

EGUs and large non-EGUs for meeting 

NOX SIP Call emission reduction 

requirements must establish a NOX mass 

emissions cap on each source and 

require part 75, subpart H monitoring. 

As an alternative to source-by-source 

NOX mass emission caps, a state may 

impose NOX emission rate limits on 

each source and use maximum 

operating capacity for estimating NOX

mass emissions or may rely on other 

requirements that the state demonstrates 

to be equivalent to either the NOX mass 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

117The named 8 states are: Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Tennessee, and West Virginia. Currently, the 

portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the 

OTR is in the consolidated metropolitan statistical 

area that includes the District of Columbia and 

northern Virginia. 

118A potential stranded investment is an 

investment in an EGU NOX reduction strategy (e.g., 

combustion controls) for which the affected EGU 

retires before the investment is fully depreciated. 

emission caps or the NOX emission rate 

limits that assume maximum operating 

capacity. Collectively, the caps or their 

alternatives cannot exceed the portion 

of the state budget for those sources. See 

40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4). If the EPA 

were to allow a state to expand the 

applicability of this proposed rule to 

include all the NOX Budget Trading 

Program units in the CSAPR NOX

ozone-season trading program, the cap 

requirement would be met through the 

new budget and the monitoring 

requirement would be met through the 

trading program provisions, which 

require part 75 monitoring. Whether this 

option is finalized or not, the EPA will 

work with states to ensure that NOX SIP 

Call obligations continue to be met. The 

EPA requests comment on the voluntary 

inclusion of NOX SIP Call non-EGUs in 

this 2008 ozone-season proposed rule. 

d. CAA Section 176A Petition To 

Expand the OTR 

On December 9, 2013, the EPA 

received a CAA section 176A petition 

from the states of Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. The petition was 

amended on December 12, 2013 to add 

the state of Pennsylvania as a 

petitioning state. The petition requests 

that the EPA add 8 states and the 

remainder of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia to the current Ozone Transport 

Region that was established under CAA 

section 184.117 The EPA will address 

this petition at a future date. 

e. Other State Implementation Plans 

In this proposal, the EPA has not 

conducted any technical analysis to 

determine whether compliance with the 

proposed rule would satisfy other 

requirements for EGUs in any 

attainment or nonattainment areas (e.g., 

RACT or BART). For that reason, the 

EPA is not now making determinations 

nor establishing any presumptions that 

compliance with the proposed rule 

satisfies any other requirements for 

EGUs. Based on analyses that states 

conduct on a case-by-case basis, states 

may be able to conclude that 

compliance with the proposed rule for 

certain EGUs fulfills other SIP 

requirements. 

2. Other Federal Rulemakings 

a. Clean Power Plan 

On August 3, 2015, President Obama 

and EPA announced the Clean Power 

Plan—a historic and important action 

on emissions that contribute to climate 

change. The CPP reduces carbon 

pollution from the power sector. With 

strong but achievable standards for 

power plants, and customized goals for 

states to cut the carbon pollution (CO2) 

that is driving climate change, the Clean 

Power Plan (CPP) provides national 

consistency, accountability and a level 

playing field while reflecting each 

state’s energy mix. 

The Clean Air Act—under section 

111(d)—creates a partnership between 

EPA, states, tribes and U.S. territories— 

with EPA setting a goal and states and 

tribes choosing how they will meet it. 

The CPP follows that approach. The 

CPP establishes interim and final CO2

emission performance rates and 

statewide goals. States then develop and 

implement plans that ensure that the 

power plants in their state—either 

individually, together or in combination 

with other measures—achieve these 

rates or goals. States will be required to 

submit a state plan, or an initial 

submittal with an extension request, by 

September 6, 2016. Complete state plans 

must be submitted no later than 

September 6, 2018. The interim rates 

and goals are assessed over the years 

2022 to 2029 and the final CO2 emission 

performance rates, rate-based goals, or 

mass-based goals are assessed for 2030 

and after. 

Because the final deadline for states to 

submit complete plans under the CPP is 

September 2018 and because mandatory 

CPP reductions do not begin until the 

interim period (i.e., starting in 2022), the 

EPA does not anticipate significant 

interactions with the CPP and the nearterm (i.e., starting in 2017) ozone season 

EGU NOX emission reduction 

requirements under this proposal. 

However the EPA notes that actions 

taken to reduce CO2 emissions (e.g., 

deployment of zero-emitting generation) 

may also reduce ozone season NOX

emissions. To the extent that states or 

electric utilities consider emission 

reduction strategies to meet these two 

separate requirements—CPP and 

interstate ozone transport—in a 

coordinated manner, they may find 

efficiency gains in that actions to meet 

the CPP goals may also help meet 

interstate ozone transport requirements. 

The EPA believes that timing 

flexibility provided in the CPP offers 

significant benefits that allow states to 

develop plans that will help achieve a 

number of goals, including, but not 

limited to: Reducing cost, addressing 

reliability concerns, addressing 

concerns about stranded assets, and 

facilitating the integration of meeting 

the emission guidelines and compliance 

by affected EGUs with other air quality 

and pollution control obligations on the 

part of both states and affected EGUs. 

The EPA is also cognizant of the 

potential influence of addressing 

interstate ozone transport on the CPP. 

As states and utilities undertake the 

near- and longer-term planning that will 

be needed for the CPP, they will have 

the opportunity to consider how 

compliance with this proposed rule can 

anticipate, or be consistent with, 

expected compliance strategies for the 

CPP. While some EGU NOX mitigation 

strategies, most notably shifting 

generation from higher-NOX emitting 

coal-fired units to lower NOX emitting 

NGCC units, can potentially also reduce 

CO2 emissions, the EGU emissions 

analysis performed for this interstate 

transport action does not results in a 

notable difference in CO2 emissions. 

However, EPA’s results do not preclude 

states and utilities from considering 

these programs together. And, as the 

EPA has structured the interstate 

transport obligations that would be 

established by this proposal as 

requirements to limit aggregate affected 

EGU emissions and the EPA is not 

proposing to enforce source-specific 

emission reduction requirements, EGU 

owners have the flexibility to plan for 

compliance with the interstate ozone 

transport requirements in ways that are 

consistent with state and EGU strategies 

to reduce CO2 emissions for the Clean 

Power Plan. 

With respect to concerns about 

potentially stranded investments 118 in 

NOX control equipment, the EPA’s 

budget-setting approach quantifies NOX

reductions from upgrading combustion 

controls at coal-fired units. However, 

CSAPR’s flexible compliance does not 

require that specific NOX controls be 

installed at any specific facilities, and 

we would not expect such controls to be 

installed on units that may not be 

economic to operate in the future. 

b. 2015 Ozone Standard 

On October 1, 2015, the EPA 

strengthened the ground-level ozone 

NAAQS to 70 ppb, based on extensive 

scientific evidence about ozone’s effects 

on public health and welfare. This 

proposed rule to update CSAPR to 

address interstate emissions transport 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75755 

119The ozone-related health benefits range is 

based on applying different adult mortality 

functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and 

Schwartz (2008)). 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

is a separate and distinct regulatory 

action and is not meant to address the 

CAA’s good neighbor provision with 

respect to the strengthened 2015 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The EPA is mindful of the need to 

address ozone transport for the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. The statutory deadline 

for the EPA to finalize area designations 

is October 1, 2017. Further, good 

neighbor SIPs from states are due on 

October 1, 2018. The steps taken under 

this proposal to reduce interstate ozone 

transport, when finalized, will help 

states attain and maintain the 2015 

ozone NAAQS. Moreover, to facilitate 

the implementation of the CAA good 

neighbor provision the EPA intends to 

provide information regarding steps 1 

and 2 of the CSAPR framework in the 

fall of 2016. In particular, the EPA 

expects to conduct modeling necessary 

to identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors and identify the 

upwind states that contribute 

significantly to these receptors. 

VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts 

of the Proposed Rule 

The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, 

and impacts of compliance with the 

proposed EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets that reflect uniform 

NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see 

proposed emissions budgets in table 

VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed 

compliance with other more and less 

stringent alternative EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, reflecting 

uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton 

and $500 per ton, respectively (see 

alternative emissions budgets in tables 

VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the 

impact of implementing these emissions 

budgets to reduce interstate transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More 

details for this assessment can be found 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

The EPA notes that its analysis of the 

regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the 

proposal and more and less stringent 

alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in 

part because the EPA proposes to 

implement the proposed EGU NOX

emissions budgets via a regional NOX

ozone-season allowance trading 

program. This implementation approach 

provides utilities with the flexibility to 

determine their own compliance path. 

The EPA’s assessment develops and 

analyzes one possible scenario for 

implementing the NOX budgets 

proposed by this action and one 

possible scenario for implementing the 

more and less stringent alternatives. 

Table VIII.1 provides the projected 

2017 EGU emissions reductions for the 

evaluated regulatory control scenarios. 

TABLE VIII.1—PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF NOX, SO2, AND CO2 WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS

BUDGETS AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[TONS] 1

Proposal More stringent 

alternative 

Less stringent 

alternative 

NOX (annual) ............................................................................................................................... 89,969 92,582 23,686 

NOX (ozone season) .................................................................................................................... 84,856 83,680 25,051 

SO2 (annual) ................................................................................................................................ 383 425 301 

CO2 (annual) ................................................................................................................................ 610,092 614,385 719,760 

1 NOX and SO2 emissions are reported in English (short) tons; CO2 is reported in metric tons. 

The EPA estimates the costs 

associated with compliance with the 

illustrative proposed regulatory control 

alternative to be approximately $93 

million annually. These costs represent 

the private compliance cost of reducing 

NOX emissions to comply with the 

proposal and include monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting costs. 

Table VIII.2 provides the estimated costs 

for the evaluated regulatory control 

scenarios, including the proposal and 

more and less stringent alternatives. 

Estimates are in 2011 dollars. 

TABLE VIII.2—COST ESTIMATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS BUDGETS AND MORE AND LESS

STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[2011]$ 1

Proposal More stringent 

alternative 

Less stringent 

alternative 

Costs ............................................................................................................................................ $93 $96 $4.7 

1 Levelized annualized costs over the period 2016 through 2040, discounted using the 4.77 discount rate used in IPM’s objective function of 

minimizing the net present value of the stream of total costs of electricity generation. 

In this analysis, the EPA monetized 

the estimated benefits associated with 

reducing population exposure to ozone 

and PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased 

emissions of CO2, but was unable to 

monetize the co-benefits associated with 

reducing exposure to mercury, carbon 

monoxide, and NO2, as well as 

ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. In addition, the EPA 

expects positive health and welfare 

impacts associated with reduced levels 

of hydrogen chloride, but could not 

quantify these impacts. Among the 

benefits it could quantify, the EPA 

estimated combinations of health 

benefits at discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent (as recommended by the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014] 

and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003]) 

and climate co-benefits at discount rates 

of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and 

3 percent (95th percentile) (as 

recommended by the interagency 

working group). The EPA estimates the 

monetized ozone-related benefits 119 of 

the proposal to be $490 million to $790 

million (2011$) in 2017 and the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

120The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is 

based on applying different adult mortality 

functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et 

al. (2012)). 

PM2.5-related co-benefits 120 of the 

proposal to be $190 million to $430 

million (2011$) using a 3% discount 

rate and $170 million to $380 million 

(2011$) using a 7% discount rate. 

Further, the EPA estimates CO2-related 

co-benefits of $6.5 to $66 million 

(2011$). Additional details on this 

analysis are provided in the RIA for this 

proposal. Tables VIII.3 and VIII.5 

summarize the quantified monetized 

human health and climate benefits of 

the proposal and the more and less 

stringent control alternatives. Table 

VIII.4 summarizes the estimated 

avoided ozone- and PM2.5-related health 

incidences for the proposal and the 

more and less stringent control 

alternatives. 

TABLE VIII.3—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND

MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[Millions of 2011]$ 1

Proposal More stringent 

alternative 

Less stringent 

alternative 

NOX (as ozone) ............................................................................................................... $490 to $790 $500 to $820 $140 to $220 

NOX (as PM2.5): 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 190 to 430 190 to 440 49 to 110 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 170 to 380 170 to 390 45 to 100 

Total: 

3% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 670 to 1,200 690 to 1,300 190 to 340 

7% Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 650 to 1,200 670 to 1,200 180 to 330 

1The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. 

(2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)). 

TABLE VIII.4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVOIDED OZONE-RELATED AND PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH INCIDENCES FROM

PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES1

Proposal More stringent 

alternative 

Less stringent 

alternative 

Ozone-Related Health Effects 

Avoided Premature Mortality: 

Smith et al. (2009) (all ages) ................................................................................................ 48 50 14 

Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) (all ages) ............................................................................ 81 83 23 

Avoided Morbidity: 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (ages > 65) ......................................................... 79 81 22 

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) ...................................................................... 320 330 90 

Asthma exacerbation (ages 6–18) ....................................................................................... 93,000 95,000 26,000 

Minor restricted-activity days (ages 18–65) ......................................................................... 240,000 240,000 67,000 

School loss days (ages 5–17) .............................................................................................. 77,000 79,000 22,000 

PM2.5-Rrelated Health Effects 

Avoided Premature Mortality: 

Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) ................................................................................................. 21 22 6 

Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) ................................................................................................. 48 50 13 

Woodruff et al. (1997) (infant) .............................................................................................. <1 <1 <1 

Avoided Morbidity: 

Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) ............................................................ 12 12 3 

Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) ................................................................................................. 31 32 8 

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) ............................................................................. 390 400 100 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) ........................................................... 560 570 150 

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) ........................................................................... 16,000 16,000 4,200 

Lost work days (age 18–65) ................................................................................................. 2,700 2,700 700 

Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) ......................................................................................... 580 600 150 

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) ......................................................................... 6 7 2 

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) ................................................................. 8 8 2 

Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Peters et al. (2001) ............................................................................................................... 25 26 7 

Pooled estimate of 4 studies ......................................................................................... 3 3 1 

1All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75757 

TABLE VIII.5—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS

STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[Millions of 2011$] 1

Discount rate and statistic Proposal More stringent 

alternative 

Less stringent 

alternative 

5% (average) ............................................................................................................................... $6.5 $6.5 $7.6 

3 (average) .................................................................................................................................. 23 23 27 

2.5 (average) ............................................................................................................................... 35 35 41 

3 (95th percentile) ........................................................................................................................ 66 66 78 

1The social cost of carbon (SC–CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO2 values represent only a partial accounting 

of climate impacts. 

The EPA combined this information 

to perform a benefit-cost analysis for 

this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and 

for the more and less stringent 

alternatives—shown in the RIA in the 

docket for this proposed rule). 

TABLE VIII.6—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S. 

[Millions of 2011$] 

Climate Co-Benefits .................................................................................. $23. 

Air Quality Health ..................................................................................... 670 to 1200. 

Total Benefits ............................................................................................ 700 to 1200. 

Annualized ................................................................................................ 93. 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................. 600 to 1100. 

Non-Monetized ......................................................................................... Non-monetized climate benefits. 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2. 

Reductions in mercury deposition. 

Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in Visibility impairment. 

There are additional important 

benefits that the EPA could not 

monetize. Due to current data and 

modeling limitations, our estimates of 

the co-benefits from reducing CO2

emissions do not include important 

impacts like ocean acidification or 

potential tipping points in natural or 

managed ecosystems. Unquantified 

benefits also include climate co-benefits 

from reducing emissions of non-CO2

GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) 

and co-benefits from reducing direct 

exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous 

air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as 

from reducing ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. Based upon the 

foregoing discussion, it remains clear 

that the benefits of this proposed action 

are substantial, and far exceed the costs. 

Additional details on benefits, costs, 

and net benefits estimates are provided 

in the RIA for this proposal. 

For this proposed rule, the EPA 

analyzed the costs to the electric power 

sector using IPM. The IPM is a dynamic 

linear programming model that can be 

used to examine the economic impacts 

of air pollution control policies for SO2

and NOX throughout the contiguous 

United States for the entire power 

system. Documentation for IPM can be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking 

or at www.epa.gov/

powersectormodeling. 

The EPA provides a qualitative 

assessment of economic impacts 

associated with electricity price changes 

to consumers that may result from this 

proposed rule. This assessment can be 

found in the RIA for this proposed rule. 

Executive Order 13563 directs federal 

agencies to consider the effect of 

regulations on job creation and 

employment. According to the 

Executive Order, ‘‘our regulatory system 

must protect public health, welfare, 

safety, and our environment while 

promoting economic growth, 

innovation, competitiveness, and job 

creation. It must be based on the best 

available science’’ (Executive Order 

13563, 2011). Although standard 

benefit-cost analyses have not typically 

included a separate analysis of 

regulation-induced employment 

impacts, employment impacts are of 

particular concern and questions may 

arise about their existence and 

magnitude. 

States have the responsibility and 

flexibility to implement policies and 

practices as part of developing SIPs for 

compliance with the emissions budgets 

found in this proposed rule. Given the 

wide range of approaches that may be 

used and industries that could be 

affected, quantifying the associated 

employment impacts is difficult. 

IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to 

the Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs 

and CSAPR Trading Programs 

This section describes proposed 

amendments to the regulatory text in the 

CFR for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program 

related to the findings and remedy 

discussed throughout this preamble. 

This section also describes other minor 

proposed corrections to the existing CFR 

text for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR 

trading programs more generally. 

The proposed regulatory text 

amendments related to the CSAPR FIPs 

and the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season 

Trading Program would be made in 

parts 52, 78, and 97 of title 40 of the 

CFR. Proposed changes to update the 

list of states that would be subject to 

FIPs to address obligations related to 

transported ozone pollution are in 

§§ 52.38(b)(2) (summarizing all states 

subject to FIPs), 52.540 (ending FIP for 

Florida), 52.882 (establishing FIP for 

Kansas), and 52.2140 (ending FIP for 

South Carolina). Section 97.510 

contains the proposed changes 

establishing or revising the amounts of 

NOX Ozone-Season trading budgets, 

new unit set-asides (NUSAs), Indian 

country NUSAs, and variability limits 

for states whose sources participate in 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Trading 

Program. Additional proposed changes 

to accommodate trading program 

participation by sources whose coverage 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75758 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

starts in different years are in 

§§ 97.506(c)(3) (compliance deadlines), 

97.512 (NUSA allowance allocation 

procedures), 97.530(b) (monitor 

certification deadlines), and 97.534(d) 

(reporting deadlines). 

Proposed changes to § 52.38(b)(3) 

through (5) would update states’ options 

to submit SIP revisions which, upon 

approval by the EPA, would modify 

certain CSAPR trading program 

provisions as applied to those states or 

replace the states’ FIPs with SIPs— 

options that correspond closely to 

states’ SIP revision options under 

CSAPR as initially promulgated. 

Proposed changes in § 97.521 

(allowance recordation) delay the 

deadlines for recording CSAPR NOX

Ozone-Season allowances for the 

control periods in 2018 through 2022 in 

order to coordinate with the proposed 

updated submission deadlines for the 

optional SIP revisions. A similar 

proposed delay in the deadline for 

recording allowances for the control 

period in 2017 would provide time to 

finalize this rulemaking and would 

thereby allow the EPA to record 

allocations of 2017 allowances based on 

the final revised budgets instead of 

recording allocations based on existing 

budgets that are proposed to be 

superseded. 

The proposed limitations on the use 

of emission allowances issued for a 

compliance period before 2017 or from 

the state NOX Ozone-Season trading 

budget for Georgia are implemented by 

redefining sources’ obligations under 

the trading program in terms of 

‘‘tonnage equivalents’’ of allowances 

rather than in terms of nominal 

quantities of allowances. Section 97.502 

contains a proposed new definition of 

‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ and related 

proposed modifications to the 

definitions of ‘‘CSAPR NOX OzoneSeason allowance’’ and ‘‘CSAPR NOX

Ozone-Season emissions limitation.’’ A 

new § 97.524(f) sets out the proposed 

procedures for determining the tonnage 

equivalent of an allowance. Additional 

proposed changes to reflect the use of 

allowances based on their tonnage 

equivalents (rather than their nominal 

numbers) to meet various obligations are 

contained in §§ 97.506(c) (standard 

requirements relating to NOX

emissions), 97.511(c) (corrections of 

incorrect allowance allocations), 97.524 

(compliance with emissions limitations 

and excess emissions provisions), and 

97.525 (compliance with assurance 

provisions). A proposed change to § 78.1 

would make EPA’s determinations of 

the tonnage equivalents of particular 

allowance holdings subject to the 

administrative appeal procedures set 

forth in part 78. 

In addition to the proposed CFR 

changes described above, this proposal 

also includes other minor amendments 

throughout the sections of parts 52, 78, 

and 97 implementing CSAPR, including 

sections implementing CSAPR’s other 

three emissions trading programs. The 

most common category of these minor 

changes consists of proposed 

corrections to cross-references. Some 

cross-references would change as a 

result of this proposal and corrections of 

those cross-references are therefore 

related to the changes described above, 

while other cross-references as 

originally published indicated incorrect 

locations because of typographical 

errors or indicated correct locations but 

did not use the correct CFR format. In 

virtually all cases, the intended correct 

cross-reference can be determined from 

context, but the corrections clarify the 

regulations. 

Besides the proposed corrections to 

cross-references, most of the remaining 

proposed corrections address other 

typographical errors. However, a small 

number of the proposed CFR changes 

correct errors that are not crossreferences or obviously typographical 

errors. While the EPA views all of these 

proposed corrections as 

noncontroversial, a few merit a short 

explanation. 

First, the phrase ‘‘with regard to the 

State’’ or ‘‘the State and’’ would be 

added in a number of locations in 

§§ 52.38 and 52.39 where it was 

inadvertently omitted. The added 

phrase clarifies that when the EPA 

approves a state’s SIP revision as 

modifying or replacing provisions in a 

CSAPR trading program, the 

modification or replacement is effective 

only with regard to that particular state. 

Correcting the omissions of these 

phrases would make the language 

concerning SIP revisions consistent for 

all the types of SIP revisions under all 

the CSAPR trading programs. 

Second, the phrase ‘‘in part’’ would 

be removed from the existing FIP 

language in various sections of part 52 

for certain states with Indian country to 

clarify that in order to replace a CSAPR 

FIP affecting the sources in these states, 

a SIP revision must fully, not ‘‘in part,’’ 

correct the SIP deficiency identified by 

the EPA as the basis for the FIP. The 

intended purpose of the words ‘‘in 

part’’—specifically, to indicate that 

approval of a state’s SIP revision would 

not relieve any sources in Indian 

country within the borders of the state 

from obligations under the FIP—is 

already served by other language in 

those FIPs. The proposed corrections 

would make the language in these 

CSAPR FIPs consistent with the FIP 

language for the remaining CSAPR FIPs 

that address states with Indian country. 

Analogous proposed changes to the 

general CSAPR FIP language in 

§§ 52.38(a)(5) and (6) and (b)(5) and (6) 

and 52.39(f), (i), and (j) would remove 

the phrase ‘‘in whole or in part’’ 

(referencing states without Indian 

country and states with Indian country, 

respectively) while adding language 

distinguishing the effect that the EPA’s 

approval of a SIP revision would have 

on sources in the state from the lack of 

effect on any sources in Indian country 

within the borders of the state. 

Third, language would be added to 

§ 78.1 clarifying that determinations by 

the EPA Administrator under the 

CSAPR trading programs that are subject 

to the part 78 administrative appeal 

procedures are subject to those 

procedures whether the source in 

question participates in a CSAPR 

trading program under a FIP or under an 

approved SIP revision. This approach is 

consistent with the approach taken 

under CAIR FIPs and SIPs and with the 

EPA’s intent in CSAPR, as evidenced by 

the lack of any proposal or discussion 

in the CSAPR rulemaking regarding 

deviation from the historical approach. 

This approach is also consistent with 

provisions in §§ 52.38 and 52.39 

prohibiting approvable SIP revisions 

from altering certain provisions of the 

CSAPR trading programs, including the 

provisions specifying that 

administrative appeal procedures for 

determinations of the EPA 

Administrator under the trading 

programs are set forth in part 78. 

Fourth, the phrase ‘‘steam turbine 

generator’’ would be changed to 

‘‘generator’’ in the list of required 

equipment in the definition of a 

‘‘cogeneration system’’ in §§ 97.402, 

97.502, 97.602, and 97.702. Absent this 

correction, a combustion turbine in a 

facility that uses the combustion turbine 

in combination with an electricity 

generator and heat recovery steam 

generator, but no steam turbine, to 

produce electricity and useful thermal 

energy would not meet the definition of 

a ‘‘cogeneration unit.’’ The proposed 

correction would clarify that a 

combustion turbine in such a facility 

should be able to qualify as a 

‘‘cogeneration unit’’ (assuming it meets 

other relevant criteria) under the CSAPR 

trading programs, as it could under the 

CAIR trading programs. The consistency 

of this approach with the EPA’s intent 

in the CSAPR rulemaking is evidenced 

by the lack of any proposal or 

discussion in that rulemaking regarding 

the concept of narrowing the set of 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75759 

121The ozone-related health benefits range is 

based on applying different adult mortality 

functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and 

Schwartz (2008)). 

122The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is 

based on applying different adult mortality 

functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et 

al. (2012)). 

facilities qualifying for an applicability 

exemption as cogeneration units. To the 

contrary, as discussed in the preamble 

to the CSAPR proposal (75 FR 45307, 

August 2, 2010), the definition of 

‘‘cogeneration system’’ was created in 

CSAPR to potentially broaden the set of 

facilities qualifying for the exemption, 

specifically by facilitating qualification 

as ‘‘cogeneration units’’ for certain units 

that might not meet the required levels 

of efficiency on an individual basis but 

that operate as components of multiunit ‘‘cogeneration systems’’ that do 

meet the required levels of efficiency. 

Fifth, the deadline for recording 

certain allowance allocations under 

§§ 97.421(j), 97.521(j), 97.621(j), and 

97.721(j) would be changed from the 

‘‘date on which’’ the EPA receives the 

necessary allocation information to the 

date ‘‘15 days after the date on which’’ 

the EPA receives the information. The 

EPA’s lack of intention in the CSAPR 

rulemaking to establish the deadline as 

defined prior to the correction is 

evidenced by the impracticability of 

complying with such a deadline. 

Sixth, a proposed change to a 

description of a required notice under 

the assurance provisions in 

§§ 97.425(b)(2)(iii)(B), 

97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.625(b)(2)(iii)(B), 

and 97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B) would modify 

the phrase ‘‘any adjustments’’ to the 

phrase ‘‘calculations incorporating any 

adjustments’’ in order to clarify that the 

required notice will identify not only 

any adjustments made to previously 

noticed calculations, but also the 

complete calculations with (or without) 

such adjustments. The intended 

meaning is clear from the subsequent 

provisions that use this notice as the 

point of reference for the complete 

calculations used in the succeeding 

administrative procedures. 

Finally, the EPA notes that the 

proposed amendments include updating 

the nomenclature in the CFR from its 

name as initially proposed—‘‘Transport 

Rule’’ or ‘‘TR’’—to its name as 

finalized—‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule’’ or ‘‘CSAPR.’’ This update is 

intended to reduce confusion and 

simplify communications regarding the 

regulations by allowing a single name to 

be used in all contexts. 

The EPA invites comment on the 

proposed regulatory text amendments 

described above and shown at the end 

of this notice. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is an economically 

significant regulatory action that was 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis, which is 

contained in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Proposed Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS’’ [EPA–452/R–15–009], 

is available in the docket and is briefly 

summarized in section VIII of this 

preamble. 

Consistent with Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563, the EPA estimated the 

costs and benefits for three regulatory 

control alternatives: The proposed EGU 

NOX ozone-season emissions budgets 

and more and less stringent alternatives. 

This proposed action would reduce 

ozone season NOX emissions from EGUs 

in 23 eastern states. Actions taken to 

comply with the proposed EGU NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets would 

also reduce emissions of other criteria 

air pollution and hazardous air 

pollution emissions, including annual 

NOX, and CO2. The benefits associated 

with these co-pollutant reductions are 

referred to as co-benefits, as these 

reductions are not the primary objective 

of this proposed rule. 

The RIA for this proposal analyzed 

illustrative compliance approaches for 

implementing the proposed FIPs. This 

proposal would establish EGU NOX

ozone-season emissions budgets for 23 

states and implement these budgets via 

the existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season 

allowance trading program. 

The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, 

and impacts of implementing the 

proposed EGU NOX ozone-season 

emissions budgets that reflect uniform 

NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see 

proposed emissions budgets in table 

VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed 

implementation of other more and less 

stringent alternative EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, reflecting 

uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton 

and $500 per ton, respectively (see 

alternative emissions budgets in tables 

VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the 

impact of implementing these emissions 

budgets to reduce interstate transport for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More 

details for this assessment can be found 

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

The EPA notes that its analysis of the 

regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the 

proposal and more and less stringent 

alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in 

part because the EPA proposes to 

implement the proposed EGU NOX

emissions budgets via a regional NOX

ozone-season allowance trading 

program. This implementation approach 

provides utilities with the flexibility to 

determine their own compliance path. 

The EPA’s assessment develops and 

analyzes one possible scenario for 

implementing the NOX budgets 

proposed by this action and one 

possible scenario for implementing the 

more and less stringent alternatives. 

The EPA estimates the costs 

associated with compliance with the 

illustrative proposed regulatory control 

alternative to be approximately $93 

million (2011$) annually. These costs 

represent the private compliance cost of 

reducing NOX emissions to comply with 

the proposal. 

In this analysis, the EPA monetized 

the estimated benefits associated with 

the reduced exposure to ozone and 

PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased 

emissions of CO2, but was unable to 

monetize the co-benefits associated with 

reducing exposure to mercury, carbon 

monoxide, and NO2, as well as 

ecosystem effects and visibility 

impairment. In addition, there are 

expected to be unquantified health and 

welfare impacts associated with changes 

in hydrogen chloride. Specifically, the 

EPA estimated combinations of health 

benefits at discount rates of 3 percent 

and 7 percent (as recommended by the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014] 

and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003]) 

and climate co-benefits at discount rates 

of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and 

3 percent (95th percentile) (as 

recommended by the interagency 

working group). The EPA estimates the 

monetized ozone-related benefits 121 of 

the proposal to be $490 million to $790 

million (2011$) in 2017 and the PM2.5- 

related co-benefits 122 of the proposal to 

be $190 million to $430 million (2011$) 

using a 3% discount rate and $170 

million to $380 million (2011$) using a 

7% discount rate. Further, the EPA 

estimates CO2-related co-benefits of $6.5 

to $66 million (2011$). Additional 

details on this analysis are provided in 

the RIA for this proposal. Tables X.A– 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75760 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1, X.A–2, and X.A–3 summarize the 

quantified human health and climate 

benefits and the costs of the proposal 

and the more and less stringent control 

alternatives. 

TABLE X.A–1—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND

MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[Millions of 2011$] 1

Proposal More stringent Less stringent 

NOX (as ozone) .................................................. $490 to $790 .......................... $500 to $820 .......................... $140 to $220 

NOX (as PM2.5) 

3% Discount Rate ....................................... $190 to $430 .......................... $190 to $440 .......................... $49 to $110. 

7% Discount Rate ....................................... $170 to $380 .......................... $170 to $390 .......................... $45 to $100. 

Total 

3% Discount Rate ....................................... $670 to $1,200 ....................... $690 to $1,300 ....................... $190 to $340. 

7% Discount Rate ....................................... $650 to $1,200 ....................... $670 to $1,200 ....................... $180 to $330. 

1The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. 

(2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)). 

TABLE X.A–2—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR

LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES

[Millions of 2011$] 1

Discount rate and statistic Proposal More 

stringent 

Less 

stringent 

5% (average) ......................................................................................................................... $6 .5 $6 .5 $7 .6 

3% (average) ......................................................................................................................... 23 23 27 

2.5% (average) ...................................................................................................................... 35 35 41 

3% (95th percentile) .............................................................................................................. 66 66 78 

1The social cost of carbon (SC–CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO2 values represent only a partial accounting 

of climate impacts. 

The EPA combined this information 

to perform a benefit-cost analysis for 

this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and 

for the more and less stringent 

alternatives—shown in the RIA in the 

docket for this proposed rule). 

TABLE X.A–3—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S. 

[Millions of 2011$] 

Climate Co-Benefits .................................................................................. $23. 

Air Quality Health Benefits ....................................................................... $670 to $1200. 

Total Benefits ............................................................................................ $700 to $1200. 

Annualized Costs ...................................................................................... $93. 

Compliance Costs .................................................................................... $10. 

Net Benefits .............................................................................................. $600 to $1100. 

Non-Monetized Benefits ........................................................................... Non-monetized climate benefits. 

Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2. 

Reductions in mercury deposition. 

Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2, 

and PM. 

Visibility impairment. 

There are additional important 

benefits that the EPA could not 

monetize. Due to current data and 

modeling limitations, our estimates of 

the co-benefits from reducing CO2

emissions do not include important 

impacts like ocean acidification or 

potential tipping points in natural or 

managed ecosystems. Unquantified 

benefits also include climate co-benefits 

from reducing emissions of non-CO2

GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) 

and co-benefits from reducing direct 

exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous 

air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as 

from reducing ecosystem effects and 

visibility impairment. Based upon the 

foregoing discussion, it remains clear 

that the benefits of this proposed action 

are substantial, and far exceed the costs. 

Additional details on benefits, costs, 

and net benefits estimates are provided 

in the RIA for this proposal. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2391.04. You can find 

a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

proposed rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information generated by 

information collection activities under 

CSAPR is used by the EPA to ensure 

that affected facilities comply with the 

emission limits and other requirements. 

Records and reports are necessary to 

enable EPA or states to identify affected 

facilities that may not be in compliance 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75761 

with the requirements. The 

recordkeeping requirements require 

only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are established pursuant 

to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and (c) and 

301(a) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D) and (c) 

and 7601(a)) and are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). Reported data may also be 

used for other regulatory and 

programmatic purposes. All information 

submitted to the EPA for which a claim 

of confidentiality is made will be 

safeguarded according to EPA policies 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, 

Confidentiality of Business Information. 

All of the EGUs that would be subject 

to changed information collection 

requirements under this proposed rule 

are already subject to information 

collection requirements under CSAPR. 

Most of these EGUs also are already 

subject to information collection 

requirements under the Acid Rain 

Program (ARP) established under Title 

IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments. Both CSAPR and the ARP 

have existing approved ICRs: EPA ICR 

Number 2391.03/OMB Control Number 

2060–0667 (CSAPR) and EPA ICR 

Number 1633.16/OMB Control Number 

2060–0258 (ARP). The burden and costs 

of the information collection 

requirements covered under the CSAPR 

ICR are estimated as incremental to the 

information collection requirements 

covered under the ARP ICR. Most of the 

information used to estimate burden 

and costs in this ICR was developed for 

the existing CSAPR and ARP ICRs. 

This proposed rule would change the 

universe of sources subject to certain 

information collection requirements 

under CSAPR but would not change the 

substance of any CSAPR information 

collection requirements. The burden 

and costs associated with the proposed 

changes in the reporting universe are 

estimated as reductions from the burden 

and costs under the existing CSAPR 

ICR. (This proposed rule would not 

change any source’s information 

collection requirements with respect to 

the ARP.) The EPA intends to 

incorporate the burden and costs 

associated with the proposed changes in 

the reporting universe under this 

rulemaking into the next renewal of the 

CSAPR ICR. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action are EGUs in the states of Florida, 

Kansas, and South Carolina that meet 

the applicability criteria for the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program in 

40 CFR 97.404. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) 

of the Clean Air Act). 

Estimated number of respondents: 

116 sources in Florida, Kansas, and 

South Carolina with one or more EGUs. 

Frequency of response: Quarterly, 

occasionally. 

Total estimated burden: Reduction of 

14,064 hours (per year). Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: Reduction of 

$1,472,047 (per year), includes 

reduction of $450,951 operation and 

maintenance costs. 

The burden and cost estimates above 

reflect the reduction in burden and cost 

for Florida sources with EGUs that 

would no longer be required to report 

NOX mass emissions and heat input 

data for the ozone season to the EPA 

under the proposed rule and that are not 

subject to similar information collection 

requirements under the Acid Rain 

Program. Because these EGUs would no 

longer need to collect NOX emissions or 

heat input data under 40 CFR part 75, 

the estimates above also reflect the 

reduction in burden and cost to collect 

and quality assure these data and to 

maintain the associated monitoring 

equipment. 

The EPA estimates that the proposed 

rule would cause no change in 

information collection burden or cost 

for EGUs in Kansas that would be 

required to report NOX mass emissions 

and heat input data for the ozone season 

to the EPA or for EGUs in South 

Carolina that would no longer be 

required to report NOX emissions and 

heat input data for the ozone season to 

the EPA. The EGUs in both Kansas and 

South Carolina already are and would 

remain subject to requirements to report 

NOX mass emissions and heat input 

data for the entire year to the EPA under 

the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program, and the requirements related 

to ozone season reporting are a subset of 

the requirements related to annual 

reporting. Similarly, the EPA estimates 

that the proposed rule would cause no 

change in information collection burden 

or cost for EGUs in Florida that are 

subject to the Acid Rain Program 

because of the close similarity between 

the information collection requirements 

under CSAPR and under the Acid Rain 

Program. 

More information on the ICR analysis 

is included in the docket for this rule. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this proposed rule. You 

may also send your ICR-related 

comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs via 

email to oria_submissions@

omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for 

the EPA. Because OMB is required to 

make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after receipt, 

OMB must receive comments no later 

than January 4, 2016. The EPA will 

respond to any ICR-related comments in 

the final rule. The information 

collection requirements in the proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

OMB under the PRA. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information collection activities in 

this proposed rule include monitoring 

and the maintenance of records. 

E. 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. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The EPA has lessened the impacts for 

small entities by excluding all units 

smaller than 25 MWe. This exclusion, in 

addition to the exemptions for 

cogeneration units and solid waste 

incineration units, eliminates the 

burden of higher costs for a substantial 

number of small entities located in the 

23 states for which the EPA is proposing 

FIPs. 

Within these states, the EPA 

identified a total of 318 potentially 

affected EGUs (i.e., greater than 25 

MWe) warranting examination in its 

RFA analysis. Of these, EPA identified 

16 potentially affected EGUs that are 

owned by 7 entities that met the Small 

Business Administration’s criteria for 

identifying small entities. The EPA 

estimated the annualized net 

compliance cost to these 7 small entities 

to be approximately ¥$38.3 million in 

2017, or savings of $38.3 million. The 

fact that the net compliance costs for all 

entities are actually net savings does not 

mean that each small entity would 

benefit from the proposal to update 

CSAPR. The net savings are driven by 

entities that are able to increase their 

revenues by increasing generation. Of 

the 7 small entities considered in this 

analysis, 1 entity may experience 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75762 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

123CSAPR also addressed interstate transport of 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

compliance costs greater than 1 or 3 

percent of generation revenues in 2017. 

Since this entity is not projected to 

operate in the base case, we are unable 

to compare the estimated compliance 

costs to base case generation revenues. 

However, we note that this entity is 

located in a cost of service market, 

where typically we expect entities 

should be able to recover all of their 

costs of complying with the proposal. 

EPA has concluded that there is no 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities (No 

SISNOSE) for this rule. Details of this 

analysis are presented in the RIA, which 

is in the public docket. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

However, the EPA analyzed the 

economic impacts of the proposal on 

government entities. According to EPA’s 

analysis, the total net economic impact 

on government owned entities (stateand municipality-owned utilities and 

subdivisions) is expected to be negative 

(i.e., cost savings) in 2014. Note that we 

expect the proposal to potentially have 

an impact on only one category of 

government-owned entities 

(municipality-owned entities). This 

analysis does not examine potential 

indirect economic impacts associated 

with the proposal, such as employment 

effects in industries providing fuel and 

pollution control equipment, or the 

potential effects of electricity price 

increases on government entities. For 

more information on the estimated 

impact on government entities, refer to 

the RIA, which is in the public docket. 

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. 

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. 

This action proposes to implement 

EGU NOX ozone season emissions 

reductions in 23 eastern states. 

However, at this time, none of the 

existing or planned EGUs affected by 

this proposed rule are owned by tribes 

or located in Indian country. This action 

may have tribal implications if a new 

affected EGU is built in Indian country. 

Additionally, tribes have a vested 

interest in how this proposed rule 

would affect air quality. 

In developing CSAPR, which was 

promulgated on July 6, 2011 to address 

interstate transport of ozone pollution 

under the 1997 ozone NAAQS,123 the 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

under the EPA Policy on Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribes 

early in the process of developing that 

regulation to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. A summary of that 

consultation is provided in 76 FR 48346 

(August 8, 2011). 

EPA received comments from several 

tribal commenters regarding the 

availability of CSAPR allowance 

allocations to new units in Indian 

country. EPA responded to these 

comments by instituting Indian country 

new unit set-asides in the final CSAPR. 

In order to protect tribal sovereignty, 

these set-asides are managed and 

distributed by the federal government 

regardless of whether CSAPR in the 

adjoining or surrounding state is 

implemented through a FIP or SIP. 

While there are no existing affected 

EGUs in Indian country covered by this 

proposal, the Indian country set-asides 

will ensure that any future new units 

built in Indian country will be able to 

obtain the necessary allowances. This 

proposal maintains the Indian country 

new unit set-aside and adjusts the 

amounts of allowances in each set-aside 

according to the same methodology of 

the original CSAPR rule. 

The EPA has informed tribes of our 

development of this proposal through a 

National Tribal Air Association—EPA 

air policy conference call (January 29, 

2015). The EPA plans to further consult 

with tribal officials under the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes early in 

the process of developing this regulation 

to permit them to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. The 

EPA will facilitate this consultation 

before finalizing this proposed rule. 

As required by section 7(a), the EPA’s 

Tribal Consultation Official has certified 

that the requirements of the executive 

order have been met in a meaningful 

and timely manner. A copy of the 

certification is included in the docket 

for this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not involve decisions on 

environmental health or safety risks that 

may disproportionately affect children. 

The EPA believes that the ozone-related 

benefits, PM2.5-related co-benefits, and 

CO2-related co-benefits would further 

improve children’s health. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action, which is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, is likely to have a significant 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. The EPA notes that one 

aspect of this proposal that may affect 

energy supply, disposition or use is the 

EPA’s proposing and taking comment 

on a range of options with respect to use 

of 2015 vintage and 2016 vintage 

CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances 

for compliance with 2017 and later 

ozone season requirements. The EPA 

has prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects for the proposed regulatory 

control alternative as follows. We 

estimate a much less than 1 percent 

change in retail electricity prices on 

average across the contiguous U.S. in 

2017, and a much less than 1 percent 

reduction in coal-fired electricity 

generation in 2017 as a result of this 

rule. The EPA projects that utility power 

sector delivered natural gas prices will 

change by less than 1 percent in 2017. 

For more information on the estimated 

energy effects, refer to the RIA, which is 

in the public docket. 

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 the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75763 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. 

The EPA notes that this action 

proposes to update CSAPR to reduce 

interstate ozone transport with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This 

proposed rule uses EPA’s authority in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to reduce 

(nitrogen oxides) NOX pollution that 

significantly contributes to downwind 

ozone nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. As a result, the proposed rule will 

reduce exposures to ozone in the mostcontaminated areas (i.e., areas that are 

not meeting the 2008 ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)). In addition, this proposed 

rule separately identifies both 

nonattainment areas and maintenance 

areas. This requirement reduces the 

likelihood that areas close to the level 

of the standard will exceed the current 

health-based standards in the future. 

The EPA proposes to implement these 

emission reductions using the CSAPR 

EGU NOX ozone-season emissions 

trading program with assurance 

provisions. 

EPA recognizes that many 

environmental justice communities 

have voiced concerns in the past about 

emission trading and the potential for 

any emission increases in any location. 

The EPA believes that CSAPR mitigated 

these concerns and that this proposal, 

which applies the CSAPR framework to 

reduce interstate ozone pollution and 

implement these reductions, will also 

minimize community concerns. The 

EPA seeks comment from communities 

on this proposal. 

Ozone pollution from power plants 

have both local and regional 

components: Part of the pollution in a 

given location—even in locations near 

emission sources—is due to emissions 

from nearby sources and part is due to 

emissions that travel hundreds of miles 

and mix with emissions from other 

sources. 

It is important to note that the section 

of the Clean Air Act providing authority 

for this proposed rule, section 

110(a)(2)(D), unlike some other 

provisions, does not dictate levels of 

control for particular facilities. CSAPR 

allows sources to trade allowances with 

other sources in the same or different 

states while firmly constraining any 

emissions shifting that may occur by 

requiring a strict emission ceiling in 

each state (the assurance level). In 

addition, assurance provisions in the 

existing CSAPR regulations that will 

remain in place under this proposal 

outline the allowance surrender 

penalties for failing to meet the 

assurance level; there are additional 

allowance penalties as well as financial 

penalties for failing to hold an adequate 

number of allowances to cover 

emissions. 

This approach reduces EGU emissions 

in each state that significantly 

contribute to downwind nonattainment 

or maintenance areas, while allowing 

power companies to adjust generation as 

needed and ensure that the country’s 

electricity needs will continue to be 

met. EPA maintains that the existence of 

these assurance provisions, including 

the penalties imposed when triggered, 

will ensure that state emissions will stay 

below the level of the budget plus 

variability limit. 

In addition, all sources must hold 

enough allowances to cover their 

emissions. Therefore, if a source emits 

more than its allocation in a given year, 

either another source must have used 

less than its allocation and be willing to 

sell some of its excess allowances, or the 

source itself had emitted less than its 

allocation in one or more previous years 

(i.e., banked allowances for future use). 

In summary, the CSAPR minimizes 

community concerns about localized 

hot spots and reduces ambient 

concentrations of pollution where they 

are most needed by sensitive and 

vulnerable populations by: Considering 

the science of ozone transport to set 

strict state emissions budgets to reduce 

significant contributions to ozone 

nonattainment and maintenance (i.e., 

the most polluted) areas; implementing 

air quality-assured trading; requiring 

any emissions above the level of the 

allocations to be offset by emission 

decreases; and imposing strict penalties 

for sources that contribute to a state’s 

exceedance of its budget plus variability 

limit. In addition, it is important to note 

that nothing in this proposed rule 

allows sources to violate their title V 

permit or any other federal, state, or 

local emissions or air quality 

requirements. 

In addition, it is important to note 

that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d), which 

addresses transport of criteria pollutants 

between states, is only one of many 

provisions of the CAA that provide EPA, 

states, and local governments with 

authorities to reduce exposure to ozone 

in communities. These legal authorities 

work together to reduce exposure to 

these pollutants in communities, 

including for minority, low-income, and 

tribal populations, and provide 

substantial health benefits to both the 

general public and sensitive subpopulations. 

The EPA has informed communities 

of our development of this proposal 

through an Environmental Justice 

community call (January 28, 2015) and 

a National Tribal Air Association—EPA 

air policy conference call (January 29, 

2015). The EPA plans to further consult 

with communities early in the process 

of developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. The EPA 

will facilitate this engagement before 

finalizing this proposed rule. 

K. Determinations Under Section 

307(b)(1) and (d) 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates 

which Federal Courts of Appeal have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by EPA. This section provides, 

in part, that petitions for review must be 

filed in the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the 

agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final action taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) such action is 

locally or regionally applicable, if ‘‘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.’’ 

The EPA proposes to find that any 

final action related to this rulemaking is 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ or of 

‘‘nationwide scope and effect’’ within 

the meaning of section 307(b)(1). 

Through this rulemaking action, the 

EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, 

a provision which has nationwide 

applicability. In addition, the proposed 

rule would apply to 23 States. The 

proposed rule is also based on a 

common core of factual findings and 

analyses concerning the transport of 

pollutants between the different states 

subject to it. For these reasons, the 

Administrator proposes to determine 

that any final action related to the 

proposed rule is of nationwide scope 

and effect for purposes of section 

307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 

307(b) any petitions for review of any 

final actions regarding the rulemaking 

would be filed in the Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

within 60 days from the date any final 

action is published in the Federal 

Register. 

In addition, pursuant to sections 

307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the 

CAA, the Administrator proposes to 

determine that this action is subject to 

the provisions of section 307(d). CAA 

section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that 

section 307(d) applies to, among other 

things, to ‘‘the promulgation or revision 

of an implementation plan by the 

Administrator under CAA section 

110(c).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under 

section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of 

section 307(d) also apply to ‘‘such other 

actions as the Administrator may 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75764 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

determine.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(V). 

The Agency has complied with 

procedural requirements of CAA section 

307(d) during the course of this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52, 78, 

and 97. 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Electric power 

plants, Incorporation by reference, 

Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 16, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 52, 78, and 97 of 

chapter I of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations are proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§§ 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 52.184, 52.540, 

52.584, 52.585, 52.731, 52.732, 52.789, 

52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 

52.940, 52.941, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1085, 

52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 

52.1326, 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, 

52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784, 52.1785, 

52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2041, 

52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 

52.2284, 52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541, 

52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended] 

■ 2. Sections 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 

52.184, 52.540, 52.584, 52.585, 52.731, 

52.732, 52.789, 52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 

52.882, 52.883, 52.940, 52.941, 52.984, 

52.1084, 52.1085, 52.1186, 52.1187, 

52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 52.1326, 

52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, 

52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784, 

52.1785, 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 

52.2040, 52.2041, 52.2140, 52.2141, 

52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 52.2284, 

52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541, 

52.2587, and 52.2588 are amended by 

removing ‘‘TR Federal Implementation 

Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in 

its place ‘‘CSAPR Federal 

Implementation Plan’’, by removing ‘‘TR 

NOX’’ wherever it appears and adding in 

its place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and by 

removing ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears 

and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’. 

§§ 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 

52.984, 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 

52.1284, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685, 

52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2283, 

52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended] 

■ 3. Sections 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 

52.882, 52.883, 52.984, 52.1186, 

52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 

52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685, 

52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 

52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588 

are amended by removing ‘‘correcting in 

part the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis 

for the CSAPR Federal Implementation 

Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in 

its place ‘‘correcting the SIP’s deficiency 

that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal 

Implementation Plan’’. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 52.36 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 52.36 is amended in 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (a) through (e)’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a) through (c)’’. 

■ 5. Section 52.38 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing 

‘‘the sources in the following States’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘sources in each 

of the following States’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by adding 

‘‘the’’ before ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual 

trading budget’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A), by 

removing ‘‘paragraph’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraphs’’; 

■ e. In the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), 

by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing 

‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘the Administrator’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by removing 

‘‘for the first control period’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘applicable to the first 

control period’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (a)(5) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘in whole or in part, 

as appropriate,’’, and by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section with regard to sources in the 

State but not sources in any Indian 

country within the borders of the State’’; 

■ h. In the table in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B), 

by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing 

‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘the Administrator’’; 

■ i. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by adding 

after ‘‘97.412(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’; 

■ j. In paragraph (a)(5)(v), by removing 

‘‘97.425, and’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘and 97.425 of this chapter and’’, and 

by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the 

words ‘‘of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of 

this chapter’’; 

■ k. In paragraph (a)(5)(vi), by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (a)(5)(i)’’; 

■ l. In paragraph (a)(6), by removing ‘‘in 

whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by 

removing ‘‘described in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4)’’, and by removing ‘‘the 

sources’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘sources’’; 

■ m. In paragraph (a)(7), by removing ‘‘a 

State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the 

State’’; 

■ n. In paragraph (b)(1), by adding 

‘‘subpart BBBBB of’’ before ‘‘part 97’’; 

■ o. Revising paragraph (b)(2); 

■ p. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as 

paragraph (b)(3)(i); in redesignated 

paragraph (b)(3)(i), by further 

redesignating paragraphs (i) through (v) 

as paragraphs (A) through (E); and in 

redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E), by 

further redesignating paragraphs (A) and 

(B) as paragraphs (1) and (2); 

■ q. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) introductory text, by removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii)’’; 

■ r. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(3)(i)(B), by adding ‘‘the’’ before 

‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget’’; 

■ s. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(3)(i)(E)(1), by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) through (iv)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through 

(D)’’; 

■ t. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(3)(i)(E)(2), by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(3)(v)(A)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E)(1)’’; 

■ u. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii); 

■ v. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’; 

■ w. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by 

adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with 

regard to the State’’, and by removing 

‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘wherever’’; 

■ x. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ y. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B), by 

revising the table; 

■ z. In paragraph (b)(5) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’, by removing ‘‘in whole 

or in part, as appropriate,’’, and by 

removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 

of this section’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section with regard to sources in the 

State but not sources in any Indian 

country within the borders of the State’’; 

■ aa. In paragraph (b)(5)(i), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75765 

adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with 

regard to the State’’, and by removing 

‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘wherever’’; 

■ bb. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) 

introductory text; 

■ cc. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B), by 

removing ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘auctions of 

CSAPR’’, and by revising the table; 

■ dd. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C), by 

removing ‘‘any control period’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘any such control 

period’’; 

■ ee. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), by adding 

a comma after ‘‘May adopt’’; 

■ ff. In paragraph (b)(5)(v), by adding 

after ‘‘97.512(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’; 

■ gg. In paragraph (b)(5)(vi), by 

removing ‘‘97.525, and’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘and 97.525 of this chapter 

and’’, and by adding after ‘‘other 

provisions’’ the words ‘‘of subpart 

BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter’’; 

■ hh. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii), by 

removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i) through 

(v)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section and 

paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) through (v)’’, by 

removing ‘‘paragraphs (5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs 

(b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’, and by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i) 

or (ii)’’; 

■ ii. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing 

‘‘in whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, 

and by removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (5)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)’’; and 

■ jj. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing ‘‘a 

State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the 

State’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.38 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB 

of part 97 of this chapter apply to 

sources in each of the following States 

and Indian country located within the 

borders of such States with regard to 

emissions in the following years: 

(i) With regard to emissions in 2015 

and 2016 only, Florida and South 

Carolina; 

(ii) With regard to emissions in 2015 

and each subsequent year, Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 

Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin; and 

(iii) With regard to emissions in 2017 

and each subsequent year, Kansas. 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State 

other than Georgia listed in paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section may 

adopt and include in a SIP revision, and 

the Administrator will approve, as 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance 

allocation provisions replacing the 

provisions in § 97.511(a) of this chapter 

with regard to the State and the control 

period in 2018, a list of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units and the amount of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

allocated to each unit on such list, 

provided that the list of units and 

allocations meets the following 

requirements: 

(A) All of the units on the list must 

be units that are in the State and 

commenced commercial operation 

before January 1, 2015; 

(B) The total amount of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance allocations on 

the list must not exceed the amount, 

under § 97.510(a) of this chapter for the 

State and the control period in 2018, of 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget minus the sum of the new unit 

set-aside and Indian country new unit 

set-aside; 

(C) The list must be submitted 

electronically in a format specified by 

the Administrator; and 

(D) The SIP revision must not provide 

for any change in the units and 

allocations on the list after approval of 

the SIP revision by the Administrator 

and must not provide for any change in 

any allocation determined and recorded 

by the Administrator under subpart 

BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter; 

(E) Provided that: 

(1) By November 15, 2016, the State 

must notify the Administrator 

electronically in a format specified by 

the Administrator of the State’s intent to 

submit to the Administrator a complete 

SIP revision meeting the requirements 

of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of 

this section by April 1, 2017; and 

(2) The State must submit to the 

Administrator a complete SIP revision 

described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of 

this section by April 1, 2017. 

(4) * * * 

(ii) The State may adopt, as CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation 

or auction provisions replacing the 

provisions in §§ 97.511(a) and (b)(1) and 

97.512(a) of this chapter with regard to 

the State and the control period in 2017 

or any subsequent year or, for Kansas, 

2019 or any subsequent year, any 

methodology under which the State or 

the permitting authority allocates or 

auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances and may adopt, in addition 

to the definitions in § 97.502 of this 

chapter, one or more definitions that 

shall apply only to terms as used in the 

adopted CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowance allocation or auction 

provisions, if such methodology— 

* * * * * 

(B) * * * 

Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances are allocated or auctioned 

Deadline for submission of allocations or 

auction results to the Administrator 

2017 .......................................................................................................... November 1, 2016.

2018 .......................................................................................................... November 1, 2016.

2019 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2018. 

2020 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2018. 

2021 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2019. 

2022 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2019. 

2023 and any year thereafter ................................................................... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) May adopt, as CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowance allocation provisions 

replacing the provisions in §§ 97.511(a) 

and (b)(1) and 97.512(a) of this chapter 

with regard to the State and the control 

period in 2019 or any subsequent year 

or, for Georgia, 2017 or any subsequent 

year, any methodology under which the 

State or the permitting authority 

allocates or auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances and that— 

* * * * * 

(B) * * * 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75766 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances are allocated or auctioned 

Deadline for submission of allocations or 

auction results to the Administrator 

2017 .......................................................................................................... November 1, 2016.

2018 .......................................................................................................... November 1, 2016.

2019 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2018. 

2020 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2018. 

2021 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2019. 

2022 .......................................................................................................... June 1, 2019. 

2023 and any year thereafter ................................................................... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period. 

* * * * * 

§ 52.39 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide? 

■ 6. Section 52.39 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading as set 

forth above; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 1 trading 

budget’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(5)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (d)(1) through (4)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (4)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory 

text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ 

the words ‘‘the State and’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by 

removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘the 

Administrator’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (f) introductory text, by 

removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as 

appropriate,’’, and by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this 

section’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this 

section with regard to sources in the 

State but not sources in any Indian 

country within the borders of the State’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, 

by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the 

words ‘‘the State and’’, and by removing 

‘‘and any subsequent year’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘or any subsequent year’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), by removing 

‘‘for such control period’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘for any such control period’’; 

■ i. In paragraph (f)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by 

removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘the 

Administrator’’; 

■ j. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) 

and (iii)’’; 

■ k. In paragraph (f)(4), by adding after 

‘‘97.612(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’; 

■ l. In paragraph (f)(5), by removing 

‘‘97.625, and’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘and 97.625 of this chapter and’’, and 

by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the 

words ‘‘of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of 

this chapter’’; 

■ m. In paragraph (f)(6), by removing 

‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 

(f)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 

(f)(1)’’; 

■ n. In paragraph (g) introductory text, 

by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the 

words ‘‘the State and’’; 

■ o. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2 trading 

budget’’; 

■ p. In paragraph (g)(5)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (g)(1) through (4)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (4)’’; 

■ q. In paragraph (h)(1) introductory 

text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ 

the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by 

removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘or any 

subsequent year’’; 

■ r. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by 

removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘the 

Administrator’’; 

■ s. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing 

‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 

(h)(1)’’; 

■ t. In paragraph (i) introductory text, by 

removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as 

appropriate,’’, and by removing 

‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this 

section’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this 

section with regard to sources in the 

State but not sources in any Indian 

country within the borders of the State’’; 

■ u. In paragraph (i)(1) introductory 

text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ 

the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by 

removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘or any 

subsequent year’’; 

■ v. In paragraph (i)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by 

removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘the 

Administrator’’; 

■ w. In paragraph (i)(4), by adding after 

‘‘97.712(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’; 

■ x. In paragraph (i)(5), by removing 

‘‘97.725, and’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘and 97.725 of this chapter and’’, and 

by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the 

words ‘‘of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of 

this chapter’’; 

■ y. In paragraph (i)(6), by removing 

‘‘hold an auction under paragraphs 

(i)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph 

(i)(1)’’; 

■ z. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘in 

whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by 

adding after ‘‘CSAPR Federal 

Implementation Plan’’ the words ‘‘set 

forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) 

of this section or paragraphs (a), (c), (g), 

and (h) of this section, as applicable’’, 

and by removing ‘‘paragraph (b) and (c)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b) 

or (c)’’; and 

■ aa. In paragraph (k), by removing ‘‘a 

State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the 

State’’. 

Subpart B—Alabama 

§ 52.54 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 52.54 is amended in 

paragraph (b)(2) by removing ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘Alabama’s SIP revision’’. 

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 8. Section 52.540 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.540 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, no source or unit located in 

the State of Florida or Indian country 

within the borders of the State shall be 

required under paragraph (a) of this 

section to comply with the requirements 

set forth under the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program in subpart 

BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter with 

regard to emissions after 2016. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 9. Section 52.882 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75767 

§ 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Kansas and Indian country within the 

borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of 

this chapter must comply with such 

requirements. The obligation to comply 

with such requirements with regard to 

sources and units in the State will be 

eliminated by the promulgation of an 

approval by the Administrator of a 

revision to Kansas’ State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting 

the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for 

the CSAPR Federal Implementation 

Plan under § 52.38(b), except to the 

extent the Administrator’s approval is 

partial or conditional. The obligation to 

comply with such requirements with 

regard to sources and units located in 

Indian country within the borders of the 

State will not be eliminated by the 

promulgation of an approval by the 

Administrator of a revision to Kansas’ 

SIP. 

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the 

time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP 

revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section, the Administrator has 

already started recording any allocations 

of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances under subpart BBBBB of 

part 97 of this chapter to units in the 

State for a control period in any year, 

the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 

97 of this chapter authorizing the 

Administrator to complete the 

allocation and recordation of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances to units 

in the State for each such control period 

shall continue to apply, unless provided 

otherwise by such approval of the 

State’s SIP revision. 

Subpart X—Michigan 

§ 52.1187 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 52.1187 is amended in 

paragraph (c)(2) by removing 

‘‘Maryland’s SIP revision’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘Michigan’s SIP revision’’. 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 11. Section 52.2140 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2140 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, no source or unit located 

in the State of South Carolina or Indian 

country within the borders of the State 

shall be required under paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section to comply with the 

requirements set forth under the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in 

subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter 

with regard to emissions after 2016. 

PART 78—APPEAL PROCEDURES 

■ 12. The authority citation for part 78 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7411, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

§§ 78.1 and 78.4 [Amended] 

■ 13. Sections 78.1 and 78.4 are 

amended by removing ‘‘TR NOX’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and by removing 

‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’. 

■ 14. Section 78.1 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding after 

‘‘part 97 of this chapter’’ the words ‘‘or 

State regulations approved under 

§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5) or (b)(4) or (5) of this 

chapter or § 52.39(e), (f), (h), or (i) of this 

chapter’’, and by adding a new third 

sentence at the end of the paragraph; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(14)(viii); and 

■ c. In paragraphs (b)(16)(ii), (iii), and 

(v), by removing ‘‘SO2 Group 1’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘SO2 Group 2’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 78.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a)(1) * * * All references in 

paragraph (b) of this section and in 

§ 78.3 to subpart AAAAA of part 97 of 

this chapter, subpart BBBBB of part 97 

of this chapter, subpart CCCCC of part 

97 of this chapter, and subpart DDDDD 

of part 97 of this chapter shall be read 

to include the comparable provisions in 

State regulations approved under 

§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, 

§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, 

§ 52.39(e) or (f) of this chapter, and 

§ 52.39(h) or (i) of this chapter, 

respectively. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(14) * * * 

(viii) The determination of the 

tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance under 

§ 97.524(f) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 78.4 [Amended] 

■ 15. Section 78.4 is amended in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ‘‘a 

affected’’ and adding in its place ‘‘an 

affected’’, by adding ‘‘or’’ before 

‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit’’, and by 

removing ‘‘, or a unit for which a TR 

opt-in application is submitted and not 

withdrawn’’. 

PART 97—FEDERAL NOX BUDGET 

TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND 

SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND 

CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING 

PROGRAMS 

■ 16. The heading of part 97 is revised 

to read as set forth above. 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 97 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 

7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq. 

§§ 97.401 through 97.735 [Amended] 

■ 18. Sections 97.401 through 97.735 

are amended by removing ‘‘Transport 

Rule (TR)’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR)’’, by removing 

‘‘TR NOX’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and 

by removing ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR 

SO2’’. 

Subpart AAAAA—CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program 

■ 19. The heading of subpart AAAAA of 

part 97 is revised to read as set forth 

above. 

§ 97.402 [Amended] 

■ 20. Section 97.402 is amended by: 

■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning 

with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical 

locations in the list of definitions; 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine 

generator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘generator’’; 

■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence 

commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) 

introductory text, by adding after 

‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ d. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR NOX

Annual allowances held or hold TR NO4

Annual allowances’’, by removing ‘‘TR 

NO4’’ and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR 

NOX’’; 

■ e. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR SO2

Group 2 Trading Program’’, by removing 

‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’; 

■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by 

removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place 

§ ’’; 

■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Owner’’, by 

removing the paragraph designator ‘‘3)’’ 

and adding in its place the paragraph 

designator ‘‘(3)’’; and 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75768 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

■ h. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use 

of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding 

after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. 

§ 97.404 [Amended] 

■ 21. Section 97.404 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and 

■ b. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). 

§ 97.406 [Amended] 

■ 22. Section 97.406 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) 

through (7); and 

■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), 

by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual’’ before 

‘‘allowances.’’ 

§ 97.410 State NOX Annual trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-asides, and variability 

limits. 

■ 23. Section 97.410 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the heading as set forth 

above; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘NOX annual trading 

budget’’ wherever it appears and adding 

in its place ‘‘NOX Annual trading 

budget’’; 

■ c. Removing ‘‘NOX annual new unit 

set-aside’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘NOX annual Indian 

country new unit set-aside’’ wherever it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘Indian 

country new unit set-aside’’; 

■ e. Removing ‘‘NOX annual variability 

limit’’ wherever it appears and adding 

in its place ‘‘variability limit’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

by removing ‘‘new unit-set aside’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; 

■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(11)(vi) and (a)(16)(vi); and 

■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after 

‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing 

‘‘identified’’, and by removing ‘‘set 

aside’’ wherever it appears and adding 

in its place ‘‘set-aside’’. 

§ 97.411 [Amended] 

■ 24. Section 97.411 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 

of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘§ 52.38(a)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; and 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing 

‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘of this section’’. 

§ 97.412 [Amended] 

■ 25. Section 97.412 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

and 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’. 

§ 97.421 [Amended] 

■ 26. Section 97.421 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by 

removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘periods’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the 

date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date 

15 days after the date’’. 

§ 97.425 [Amended] 

■ 27. Section 97.425 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by 

adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ 

before ‘‘any adjustments’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘the’’ before ‘‘them’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by 

removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word 

‘‘at’’. 

§ 97.426 [Amended] 

■ 28. Section 97.426 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘97.427, or 

97.428’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 97.427, or § 97.428’’. 

§ 97.428 [Amended] 

■ 29. Section 97.428 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (a)’’. 

§ 97.430 [Amended] 

■ 30. Section 97.430 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of 

a CSAPR NOX Annual unit’’, by adding 

‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following 

dates’’ each time it appears, and by 

removing the final period and adding in 

its place a colon; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) introductory text; 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon 

and adding in its place a period; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’. 

§ 97.431 [Amended] 

■ 31. Section 97.431 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) 

through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), 

and (d)(3)(v); and 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’. 

§ 97.434 [Amended] 

■ 32. Section 97.434 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘requirements’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by 

adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final 

colon; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by 

removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the 

third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which 

case reporting shall commence in the 

quarter covering January 1, 2015 

through March 31, 2015’’. 

Subpart BBBBB—CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Trading Program 

■ 33. The heading of subpart BBBBB of 

part 97 is revised to read as set forth 

above. 

■ 34. Section 97.502 is amended by: 

■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning 

with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical 

locations in the list of definitions; 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine 

generator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘generator’’; 

■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence 

commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) 

introductory text, by adding after 

‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75769 

■ d. Revising the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance’’ and 

‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions 

limitation’’; 

■ e. In the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR SO2

Group 1 Trading Program’’ and ‘‘CSAPR 

SO2 Group 2 Trading Program’’, by 

removing ‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in in its 

place ‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’; 

■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by 

removing ‘‘§§’’ and adding in its place 

§’’; 

■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use 

of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding 

after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’; and 

■ h. Adding, in alphabetical order, a 

definition of ‘‘Tonnage equivalent.’’ 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 97.502 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance 

means a limited authorization under the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading 

Program issued and allocated or 

auctioned to a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season unit in a State (or Indian country 

within the borders of such State) by the 

Administrator under this subpart, or by 

the State or permitting authority under 

a SIP revision approved by the 

Administrator under § 52.38(b)(3), (4), 

or (5) of this chapter, to emit either: 

(1) One ton of NOX in the State (or 

Indian country located within the 

borders of such State) during a control 

period of the specified calendar year for 

which the authorization is allocated or 

auctioned; or 

(2) As determined under § 97.524(f), 

up to one ton of NOX in another State 

(or Indian country located within the 

borders of another State) or during a 

control period after the specified 

calendar year for which the 

authorization is allocated or auctioned. 

* * * * * 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions 

limitation means, for a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season source, the tonnage of 

NOX emissions authorized in a control 

period in a given year by the tonnage 

equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances available for 

deduction for the source under 

§ 97.524(a) for such control period. 

* * * * * 

Tonnage equivalent means, with 

regard to a specific individual CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance held or 

deducted for an identified purpose, the 

portion of one ton represented by the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance as 

determined under § 97.524(f) or, with 

regard to a specific group of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances held or 

deducted for a common identified 

purpose, the unrounded sum of the 

tonnage equivalents of the individual 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

comprising the group. 

* * * * * 

§ 97.504 [Amended] 

■ 35. Section 97.504 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’, and by 

removing ‘‘TR NOX’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’; and 

■ b. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). 

■ 36. Section 97.506 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c), (c)(1) and (2), and (c)(4) 

through (7); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 

(c)(2)(i) introductory text, and 

(c)(2)(v)(B); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(i) as 

paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), and revising it; 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B); 

■ e. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), 

by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season’’ 

before ‘‘allowances’’; and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(6) 

introductory text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 97.506 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) As of the allowance transfer 

deadline for a control period in a given 

year, the owners and operators of each 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source and 

each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit at 

the source shall hold, in the source’s 

compliance account, CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances available for 

deduction for such control period under 

§ 97.524(a) with a tonnage equivalent 

not less than the tons of total NOX

emissions for such control period from 

all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at 

the source. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) If total NOX emissions during a 

control period in a given year from all 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources in a 

State (and Indian country within the 

borders of such State) exceed the State 

assurance level, then the owners and 

operators of such sources and units in 

each group of one or more sources and 

units having a common designated 

representative for such control period, 

where the common designated 

representative’s share of such NOX

emissions during such control period 

exceeds the common designated 

representative’s assurance level for the 

State and such control period, shall 

hold (in the assurance account 

established for the owners and operators 

of such group) CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances available for 

deduction for such control period under 

§ 97.525(a) with a tonnage equivalent 

not less than two times the product 

(rounded to the nearest whole number), 

as determined by the Administrator in 

accordance with § 97.525(b), of 

multiplying— 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(B) Each ton of the tonnage equivalent 

of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances that the owners and 

operators fail to hold for such control 

period in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and 

each day of such control period shall 

constitute a separate violation of this 

subpart and the Clean Air Act. 

(3) * * * 

(i)(A) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season unit shall be subject to 

the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section for the control period 

starting on the later of May 1, 2015 or 

the deadline for meeting the unit’s 

monitor certification requirements 

under § 97.530(b) and for each control 

period thereafter. 

(B) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit 

in the State of Kansas (or Indian country 

within the borders of the State) that is 

not a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in 

another State (or Indian country within 

the borders of another State) during any 

portion of a control period in 2015 or 

2016 shall be subject to the 

requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section for the control period 

starting on the later of May 1, 2017 or 

the deadline for meeting the unit’s 

monitor certification requirements 

under § 97.530(b) and for each control 

period thereafter. 

* * * * * 

(6) Limited authorization. A CSAPR 

NOX; Ozone Season allowance is a 

limited authorization to emit up to one 

ton of NOX; during the control period in 

one year as determined under 

§ 97.524(f). Such authorization is 

limited in its use and duration as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 37. Section 97.510 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-asides, and variability 

limits. 

(a) The State NOX Ozone Season 

trading budgets, new unit set-asides, 

and Indian country new unit set-asides 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75770 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances for the control 

periods in 2015 and thereafter are as 

follows: 

(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 31,746 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 635 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,979 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 205 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 15,110 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 756 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,949 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 141 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(3) Florida. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 

28,644 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 544 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 29 tons. 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) [Reserved] 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(4) Georgia. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 27,944 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 559 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 24,041 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 481 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(5) Illinois. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 

21,208 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,697 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,078 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 591 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(6) Indiana. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 46,876 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,406 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 28,284 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 565 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(7) Iowa. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 

16,532 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 314 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 17 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 8,351 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 411 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 8 tons. 

(8) Kansas. (i) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,272 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 272 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 9 tons. 

(9) Kentucky. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 36,167 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,447 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 21,519 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 647 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(10) Louisiana. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 18,115 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 344 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 18 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,807 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 612 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons. 

(11) Maryland. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 7,179 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 144 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,026 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 485 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(12) Michigan. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 28,041 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 533 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 28 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 19,115 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 363 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 19 tons. 

(13) Mississippi. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 12,429 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 237 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 12 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,910 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 584 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons. 

(14) Missouri. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 22,788 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 

684 tons and for 2016 is 1,367 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,323 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 314 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(15) New Jersey. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 4,128 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 83 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 2,015 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 1,151 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(16) New York. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 10,369 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 197 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 10 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,450 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 89 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 4 tons. 

(17) North Carolina. (i) The NOX

Ozone Season trading budget for 2015 

and 2016 is 22,168 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,308 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 22 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,275 

tons. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75771 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 236 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 12 tons. 

(18) Ohio. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 

41,284 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 826 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,660 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 337 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(19) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 is 36,567 

tons and for 2016 is 22,694 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 

731 tons and for 2016 is 454 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,215 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 309 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons. 

(20) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 52,201 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,044 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 14,387 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 1,017 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(21) South Carolina. (i) The NOX

Ozone Season trading budget for 2015 

and 2016 is 13,909 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 264 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 14 tons. 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) [Reserved] 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(22) Tennessee. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 14,908 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 298 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,481 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 109 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(23) Texas. (i) The NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is 

65,560 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 2,556 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 66 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 58,002 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 2,852 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 58 tons. 

(24) Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 14,452 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 723 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,818 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 1,844 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(25) West Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 25,283 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 1,264 tons. 

(iii) [Reserved] 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 13,390 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 268 tons. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(26) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget for 2015 and 

2016 is 14,784 tons. 

(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 

and 2016 is 872 tons. 

(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 15 tons. 

(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading 

budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,561 

tons. 

(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 

and thereafter is 115 tons. 

(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons. 

(b) The States’ variability limits for 

the State NOX Ozone Season trading 

budgets for the control periods in 2017 

and thereafter are as follows: 

(1) The variability limit for Alabama 

is 2,096 tons. 

(2) The variability limit for Arkansas 

is 1,459 tons. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The variability limit for Georgia is 

5,049 tons. 

(5) The variability limit for Illinois is 

2,536 tons. 

(6) The variability limit for Indiana is 

5,940 tons. 

(7) The variability limit for Iowa is 

1,754 tons. 

(8) The variability limit for Kansas is 

1,947 tons. 

(9) The variability limit for Kentucky 

is 4,519 tons. 

(10) The variability limit for Louisiana 

is 3,319 tons. 

(11) The variability limit for Maryland 

is 845 tons. 

(12) The variability limit for Michigan 

is 4,014 tons. 

(13) The variability limit for 

Mississippi is 1,241 tons. 

(14) The variability limit for Missouri 

is 3,218 tons. 

(15) The variability limit for New 

Jersey is 423 tons. 

(16) The variability limit for New 

York is 935 tons. 

(17) The variability limit for North 

Carolina is 2,578 tons. 

(18) The variability limit for Ohio is 

3,499 tons. 

(19) The variability limit for 

Oklahoma is 3,405 tons. 

(20) The variability limit for 

Pennsylvania is 3,021 tons. 

(21) [Reserved] 

(22) The variability limit for 

Tennessee is 1,151 tons. 

(23) The variability limit for Texas is 

12,180 tons. 

(24) The variability limit for Virginia 

is 1,432 tons. 

(25) The variability limit for West 

Virginia is 2,812 tons. 

(26) The variability limit for 

Wisconsin is 1,168 tons. 

(c) Each State NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget in this section includes 

any tons in a new unit set-aside or 

Indian country new unit set-aside, but 

does not include any tons in a 

variability limit. 

■ 38. Section 97.511 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘August 31 

of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B), by adding 

a paragraph break after the end of the 

second sentence and before the 

paragraph designator ‘‘(v)’’ for the 

following paragraph (b)(2)(v); 

■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’, and by 

removing ‘‘January 1’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘May 1’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; and 

■ i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing 

‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘of this section’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.511 Timing requirements for CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations. 

* * * * * 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75772 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(c) * * * 

(3) If the Administrator already 

recorded such CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances under § 97.521 and if 

the Administrator makes the 

determination under paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section before making deductions 

for the source that includes such 

recipient under § 97.524(b) for such 

control period, then the Administrator 

will deduct from the account in which 

such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances were recorded CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances allocated for 

the same or a prior control period until 

the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances 

deducted under this paragraph equals or 

exceeds the tonnage equivalent of such 

already recorded CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances, making all such 

deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances. The authorized 

account representative shall ensure that 

there are CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances in such account with a 

tonnage equivalent sufficient for 

completion of the deduction. 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Section 97.512 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

and 

■ i. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.512 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowance allocations to new units. 

(a) For each control period in 2015 

and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units in each State for 

which a new unit set-aside is set forth 

in § 97.510 for that control period, the 

Administrator will allocate CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances to the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season units as follows: 

* * * * * 

(b) For each control period in 2015 

and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units located in Indian 

country within the borders of each State 

for which an Indian country new unit 

set-aside is set forth in § 97.510 for that 

control period, the Administrator will 

allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season units as follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 97.521 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

by removing ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i) through 

(iv)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i)(A) through (D)’’; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (c)(1), and revising it; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(2); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and 

■ e. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the 

date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date 

15 days after the date’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.521 Recordation of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance allocations and 

auction results. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) By December 1, 2016, the 

Administrator will record in each 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source’s 

compliance account the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances allocated to 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at 

the source, or in each appropriate 

Allowance Management System account 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances auctioned to CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units, in accordance with 

§ 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision 

approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of 

this chapter, for the control period in 

2017 or, for such sources in Georgia, the 

control periods in 2017 and 2018. 

(2) For the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

sources not in Georgia, by December 1, 

2016, the Administrator will record in 

each such source’s compliance account 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units at the source in 

accordance with § 97.511(a) for the 

control period in 2018, unless the State 

in which the source is located notifies 

the Administrator in writing by 

November 15, 2016 of the State’s intent 

to submit to the Administrator a 

complete SIP revision by April 1, 2017 

meeting the requirements of 

§ 52.38(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of this 

chapter. 

(A) If the State does not submit to the 

Administrator by April 1, 2017 such 

complete SIP revision, the 

Administrator will record by April 15, 

2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

source’s compliance account the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated 

to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units 

at the source in accordance with 

§ 97.511(a) for the control period in 

2018. 

(B) If the State submits to the 

Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the 

Administrator approves by October 1, 

2017 such complete SIP revision, the 

Administrator will record by October 1, 

2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

source’s compliance account the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated 

to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units 

at the source as provided in such 

approved, complete SIP revision for the 

control period in 2018. 

(C) If the State submits to the 

Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the 

Administrator does not approve by 

October 1, 2017 such complete SIP 

revision, the Administrator will record 

by October 1, 2017 in each CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units at the source in 

accordance with § 97.511(a) for the 

control period in 2018. 

(d) By July 1, 2018, the Administrator 

will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season source’s compliance account the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season units at the source, or in each 

appropriate Allowance Management 

System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season units, in accordance 

with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision 

approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of 

this chapter, for the control periods in 

2019 and 2020. 

(e) By July 1, 2019, the Administrator 

will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season source’s compliance account the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season units at the source, or in each 

appropriate Allowance Management 

System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season units, in accordance 

with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision 

approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of 

this chapter, for the control periods in 

2021 and 2022. 

* * * * * 

■ 41. Section 97.524 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), (c)(2) 

introductory text, and (c)(2)(i) and (ii); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) 

through (v); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 97.524 Compliance with CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season emissions limitation. 

* * * * * 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75773 

(b) Deductions for compliance. After 

the recordation, in accordance with 

§ 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowance transfers submitted by the 

allowance transfer deadline for a control 

period in a given year, the 

Administrator will deduct from each 

source’s compliance account CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances available 

under paragraph (a) of this section in 

order to determine whether the source 

meets the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

emissions limitation for such control 

period, making all such deductions in 

whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances, as follows: 

(1) Until the tonnage equivalent of the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

deducted equals or exceeds the number 

of tons of total NOX emissions from all 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at the 

source for such control period; or 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Default order of deductions. The 

Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances under 

paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from 

the source’s compliance account in 

accordance with a complete request 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, 

in the absence of such request or in the 

case of identification of an insufficient 

amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances in such request, in the 

following order: 

(i) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances determined under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage 

equivalent of one ton per allowance that 

were allocated or auctioned from the 

NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 

the State within whose borders the 

source is located to the units at the 

source and were not transferred out of 

the compliance account, in the order of 

recordation; 

(ii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances determined under paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage 

equivalent of one ton per allowance that 

were not allocated or auctioned from the 

NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 

the State within whose borders the 

source is located to any unit at the 

source and were transferred to and 

recorded in the compliance account 

pursuant to this subpart, in the order of 

recordation; 

(iii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances determined under paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section to have a tonnage 

equivalent of four tenths of one ton per 

allowance, in the order of recordation; 

(iv) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances determined under paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage 

equivalent of one fourth of one ton per 

allowance that were allocated or 

auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for the State within 

whose borders the source is located to 

the units at the source and were not 

transferred out of the compliance 

account, in the order of recordation; and 

(v) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances determined under paragraph 

(f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage 

equivalent of one fourth of one ton per 

allowance that were not allocated or 

auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season 

trading budget for the State within 

whose borders the source is located to 

any unit at the source and were 

transferred to and recorded in the 

compliance account pursuant to this 

subpart, in the order of recordation. 

(d) Deductions for excess emissions. 

After making the deductions for 

compliance under paragraph (b) of this 

section for a control period in a year in 

which the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

source has excess emissions, the 

Administrator will deduct from the 

source’s compliance account CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated 

for a control period in a prior year or the 

control period in the year of the excess 

emissions or in the immediately 

following year, making all such 

deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances, until the tonnage 

equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances deducted under this 

paragraph equals or exceeds two times 

the number of tons of the source’s 

excess emissions. 

* * * * * 

(f) Tonnage equivalents of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances. Where a 

determination is needed of the tonnage 

equivalent of a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowance held or deducted 

under any provision of § 97.506(c), 

§ 97.511(c), § 97.524, § 97.525, § 97.527, 

or § 97.528 relating to the holding or 

deduction of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances, the Administrator will 

make the determination as follows, 

provided that notwithstanding any such 

determination the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowance remains subject to the 

limitations in § 97.506(c)(6): 

(1) Except as provided under 

paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section, 

the tonnage equivalent of each CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowance shall be 

one ton per allowance. 

(2) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowance has been allocated or 

auctioned for a control period in 2017 

or a subsequent year from the NOX

Ozone Season trading budget for 

Georgia, and where the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance is held or 

deducted for any purpose related to 

emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season unit in another State (or Indian 

country within the borders of another 

State) or for the purpose of correcting an 

allocation or recordation error affecting 

a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in 

another State (or Indian country within 

the borders of another State), the 

tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance shall be four 

tenths of one ton per allowance. 

(3) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowance has been allocated or 

auctioned for a control period in 2015 

or 2016, and where the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance is held or 

deducted for any purpose related to 

emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season unit in any State except Georgia 

(or Indian country within the borders of 

such a State) in a control period in 2017 

or a subsequent year or for the purpose 

of correcting an allocation or 

recordation error affecting a CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season unit in any State 

except Georgia (or Indian country 

within the borders of such a State) for 

a control period in 2017 or a subsequent 

year, the tonnage equivalent of the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance 

shall be one fourth of one ton per 

allowance. 

(4) The Administrator will determine 

the year of the compliance period for 

which a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowance was allocated or auctioned 

and the State from whose NOX Ozone 

Season trading budget the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowance was allocated 

or auctioned based on the records 

maintained in the Allowance 

Management System. 

■ 42. Section 97.525 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(2)(ii); 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding 

‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ before 

‘‘any adjustments’’; and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5), 

(b)(6) introductory text, (b)(6)(i) and (ii), 

(b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and 

(b)(6)(iii)(A) and (B). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.525 Compliance with CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season assurance provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Deductions for compliance. The 

Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances available 

under paragraph (a) of this section for 

compliance with the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season assurance provisions for a State 

for a control period in a given year in 

accordance with the following 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75774 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

procedures, making all such deductions 

in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances: 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) By August 1 immediately after the 

promulgation of such notice, the 

Administrator will calculate, for each 

such State (and Indian country within 

the borders of such State) and such 

control period and each common 

designated representative for such 

control period for a group of one or 

more CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

sources and units in the State (and 

Indian country within the borders of 

such State), the common designated 

representative’s share of the total NOX

emissions from all CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season units at CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season sources in the State (and Indian 

country within the borders of such 

State), the common designated 

representative’s assurance level, and the 

tonnage equivalent (if any) of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances that the 

owners and operators of such group of 

sources and units must hold in 

accordance with the calculation formula 

in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate 

a notice of data availability of the results 

of these calculations. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) As of midnight of November 1 

immediately after the promulgation of 

each notice of data availability required 

in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, 

the owners and operators described in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall 

hold in the assurance account 

established for them and for the 

appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

units, and State (and Indian country 

within the borders of such State) under 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances, 

available for deduction under paragraph 

(a) of this section, with a total tonnage 

equivalent not less than the tonnage 

equivalent such owners and operators 

are required to hold with regard to such 

sources, units and State (and Indian 

country within the borders of such 

State) as calculated by the 

Administrator and referenced in such 

notice. 

* * * * * 

(5) After November 1 (or the date 

described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this 

section) immediately after the 

promulgation of each notice of data 

availability required in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the 

recordation, in accordance with 

§ 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowance transfers submitted by 

midnight of such date, the 

Administrator will determine whether 

the owners and operators described in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in 

the assurance account for the 

appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

units, and State (and Indian country 

within the borders of such State) 

established under paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances available under paragraph 

(a) of this section with the tonnage 

equivalent that the owners and 

operators are required to hold with 

regard to such sources, units, and State 

(and Indian country within the borders 

of such State) as calculated by the 

Administrator and referenced in the 

notice required in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. 

(6) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this subpart and any 

revision, made by or submitted to the 

Administrator after the promulgation of 

the notice of data availability required 

in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section 

for a control period in a given year, of 

any data used in making the 

calculations referenced in such notice, 

the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances that the 

owners and operators are required to 

hold in accordance with § 97.506(c)(2)(i) 

for such control period shall continue to 

be such tonnage equivalents as 

calculated by the Administrator and 

referenced in such notice required in 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, 

except as follows: 

(i) If any such data are revised by the 

Administrator as a result of a decision 

in or settlement of litigation concerning 

such data on appeal under part 78 of 

this chapter of such notice, or on appeal 

under section 307 of the Clean Air Act 

of a decision rendered under part 78 of 

this chapter on appeal of such notice, 

then the Administrator will use the data 

as so revised to recalculate the tonnage 

equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances that owners and 

operators are required to hold in 

accordance with the calculation formula 

in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control 

period with regard to the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units, and State (and 

Indian country within the borders of 

such State) involved, provided that such 

litigation under part 78 of this chapter, 

or the proceeding under part 78 of this 

chapter that resulted in the decision 

appealed in such litigation under 

section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was 

initiated no later than 30 days after 

promulgation of such notice required in 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. 

(ii) If any such data are revised by the 

owners and operators of a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season source and CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season unit whose designated 

representative submitted such data 

under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 

as a result of a decision in or settlement 

of litigation concerning such 

submission, then the Administrator will 

use the data as so revised to recalculate 

the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances that owners 

and operators are required to hold in 

accordance with the calculation formula 

in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control 

period with regard to the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season units, and State (and 

Indian country within the borders of 

such State) involved, provided that such 

litigation was initiated no later than 30 

days after promulgation of such notice 

required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of 

this section. 

(iii) If the revised data are used to 

recalculate, in accordance with 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, the tonnage equivalent of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

that the owners and operators are 

required to hold for such control period 

with regard to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season units, and State (and Indian 

country within the borders of such 

State) involved— 

(A) Where the tonnage equivalent of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

that the owners and operators are 

required to hold increases as a result of 

the use of all such revised data, the 

Administrator will establish a new, 

reasonable deadline on which the 

owners and operators shall hold CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances with the 

additional tonnage equivalent in the 

assurance account established by the 

Administrator for the appropriate 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and 

State (and Indian country within the 

borders of such State) under paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. The owners’ and 

operators’ failure to hold such 

additional tonnage equivalent, as 

required, before the new deadline shall 

not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. 

The owners’ and operators’ failure to 

hold such additional tonnage 

equivalent, as required, as of the new 

deadline shall be a violation of the 

Clean Air Act. Each ton of the tonnage 

equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances that the owners and 

operators fail to hold as required as of 

the new deadline, and each day in such 

control period, shall be a separate 

violation of the Clean Air Act. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75775 

(B) For the owners and operators for 

which the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances required 

to be held decreases as a result of the 

use of all such revised data, the 

Administrator will record, in all 

accounts from which CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season allowances were 

transferred by such owners and 

operators for such control period to the 

assurance account established by the 

Administrator for the appropriate 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and 

State (and Indian country within the 

borders of such State) under paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, a total amount of 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances held in such assurance 

account that the Administrator 

determines may be transferred from 

such assurance account without causing 

the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season allowances held by 

such owners and operators in such 

assurance account to fall below the 

tonnage equivalent required to be held 

by such owners and operators in such 

assurance account, making any transfers 

in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

allowances. If CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances were transferred to 

such assurance account from more than 

one account, the tonnage equivalent of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances 

recorded in each such transferor 

account will be in proportion to the 

percentage of the total tonnage 

equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season allowances transferred to such 

assurance account for such control 

period from such transferor account. 

* * * * * 

§ 97.528 [Amended] 

■ 43. Section 97.528 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (a)’’. 

■ 44. Section 97.530 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(1) through (3); 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(4)(iii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.530 General monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance deadlines. Except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section, the owner or operator of a 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit shall 

meet the monitoring system certification 

and other requirements of paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before 

the latest of the following dates and 

shall record, report, and quality-assure 

the data from the monitoring systems 

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on 

and after the latest of the following 

dates: 

(1)(i) For a unit other than a unit 

described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section, May 1, 2015; or 

(ii) For a unit in the State of Kansas 

(or Indian country within the borders of 

the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season unit in another State (or 

Indian country within the borders of 

another State) during any portion of a 

control period in 2015 or 2016, May 1, 

2017; 

(2) 180 calendar days after the date on 

which the unit commences commercial 

operation; or 

(3) Where data for the unit is reported 

on a control period basis under 

§ 97.534(d)(2)(ii)(B), and where the 

compliance date under paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section is not in a month from 

May through September, May 1 

immediately after the compliance date 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

§ 97.531 [Amended] 

■ 45. Section 97.531 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) 

through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), 

and (d)(3)(v); 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5) as paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5). 

■ 46. Section 97.534 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘requirements’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(6) as 

paragraph (d)(5)(ii); and 

■ d. In paragraph (e)(3), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B)’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 97.534 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) The designated representative 

shall report the NOX mass emissions 

data and heat input data for a CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season unit, in an 

electronic quarterly report in a format 

prescribed by the Administrator, for 

each calendar quarter indicated under 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section 

beginning with the latest of: 

(i)(A) For a unit other than a unit 

described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of 

this section, the calendar quarter 

covering May 1, 2015 through June 30, 

2015; or 

(B) For a unit in the State of Kansas 

(or Indian country within the borders of 

the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season unit in another State (or 

Indian country within the borders of 

another State) during any portion of a 

control period in 2015 or 2016, the 

calendar quarter covering May 1, 2017 

through June 30, 2017; 

(ii) The calendar quarter 

corresponding to the earlier of the date 

of provisional certification or the 

applicable deadline for initial 

certification under § 97.530(b); or 

(iii) For a unit that reports on a 

control period basis under paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if the 

calendar quarter under paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section does not include 

a month from May through September, 

the calendar quarter covering May 1 

through June 30 immediately after the 

calendar quarter under paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(2)(i) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

unit is subject to the Acid Rain Program 

or a CSAPR NOX Annual emissions 

limitation or if the owner or operator of 

such unit chooses to report on an 

annual basis under this subpart, then 

the designated representative shall meet 

the requirements of subpart H of part 75 

of this chapter (concerning monitoring 

of NOX mass emissions) for such unit 

for the entire year and report the NOX

mass emissions data and heat input data 

for such unit for the entire year. 

(ii) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

unit is not subject to the Acid Rain 

Program or a CSAPR NOX Annual 

emissions limitation, then the 

designated representative shall either: 

(A) Meet the requirements of subpart 

H of part 75 of this chapter for such unit 

for the entire year and report the NOX

mass emissions data and heat input data 

for such unit for the entire year in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of 

this section; or 

(B) Meet the requirements of subpart 

H of part 75 of this chapter (including 

the requirements in § 75.74(c) of this 

chapter) for such unit for the control 

period and report the NOX mass 

emissions data and heat input data 

(including the data described in 

§ 75.74(c)(6) of this chapter) for such 

unit only for the control period of each 

year. 

* * * * * 

Subpart CCCCC—CSAPR SO2 Group 1 

Trading Program 

■ 47. The heading of subpart CCCCC of 

part 97 is revised to read as set forth 

above. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75776 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 97.602 [Amended] 

■ 48. Section 97.602 is amended by: 

■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning 

with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical 

locations in the list of definitions; 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine 

generator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘generator’’; 

■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence 

commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) 

introductory text, by adding after 

‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by 

removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place 

§ ’’; and 

■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use 

of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding 

after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. 

§ 97.604 [Amended] 

■ 49. Section 97.604 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and 

■ b. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). 

§ 97.606 [Amended] 

■ 50. Section 97.606 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) 

through (7); 

■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), 

by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 1’’ before 

‘‘allowances’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing 

‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘subpart B’’. 

§ 97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-asides, and variability 

limits. 

■ 51. Section 97.610 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the heading as set forth 

above; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘SO2 trading budget’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘SO2 Group 1 trading budget’’; 

■ c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new 

unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new 

unit set-aside’’; 

■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘variability limit’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

by adding ‘‘Group 1’’ before ‘‘trading 

budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unitset aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new 

unit set-aside’’; 

■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(2)(vi) and (a)(11)(vi); and 

■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after 

‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, and by 

removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘setaside’’. 

§ 97.611 [Amended] 

■ 52. Section 97.611 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 

of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; and 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing 

‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘of this section’’. 

§ 97.612 [Amended] 

■ 53. Section 97.612 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by 

removing ‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and by 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; 

and 

■ h. In paragraph (b)(11), by adding after 

‘‘paragraphs (b)(9), (10) and (12)’’ the 

words ‘‘of this section’’. 

§ 97.621 [Amended] 

■ 54. Section 97.621 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by 

removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘periods’’; 

■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by 

removing ‘‘§ 52.39(e) and (f)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’; 

and 

■ c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the 

date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date 

15 days after the date’’. 

§ 97.625 [Amended] 

■ 55. Section 97.625 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by 

adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ 

before ‘‘any adjustments’’. 

§ 97.628 [Amended] 

■ 56. Section 97.628 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (a)’’. 

§ 97.630 [Amended] 

■ 57. Section 97.630 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of 

a CSAPR SO2 Group 1 unit’’, by adding 

‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following 

dates’’ each time it appears, and by 

removing the final period and adding in 

its place a colon; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) introductory text; 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon 

and adding in its place a period; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’. 

§ 97.631 [Amended] 

■ 58. Section 97.631 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) 

through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), 

and (d)(3)(v); 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3). 

§ 97.634 [Amended] 

■ 59. Section 97.634 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘requirements’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by 

adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final 

colon; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by 

removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the 

third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which 

case reporting shall commence in the 

quarter covering January 1, 2015 

through March 31, 2015’’. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 75777 

Subpart DDDDD—CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

Trading Program 

■ 60. The heading of subpart DDDDD of 

part 97 is revised to read as set forth 

above. 

§ 97.702 [Amended] 

■ 61. Section 97.702 is amended by: 

■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning 

with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical 

locations in the list of definitions; 

■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration 

system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine 

generator’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘generator’’; 

■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence 

commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2) 

introductory text, by adding after 

‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by 

removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use 

of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding 

after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’. 

§ 97.704 [Amended] 

■ 62. Section 97.704 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and 

■ b. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2). 

§ 97.706 [Amended] 

■ 63. Section 97.706 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4) 

through (7); 

■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), 

by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2’’ before 

‘‘allowances’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing 

‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘subpart B’’. 

§ 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading 

budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian 

country new unit set-asides, and variability 

limits. 

■ 64. Section 97.710 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the heading as set forth 

above; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘SO2 trading budget’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘SO2 Group 2 trading budget’’; 

■ c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’; 

■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new 

unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and 

adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new 

unit set-aside’’; 

■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘variability limit’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

by adding ‘‘Group 2’’ before ‘‘trading 

budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unitset aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new 

unit set-aside’’; and 

■ g. In paragraph (c), by adding after 

‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing 

‘‘identified under’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘in’’, by removing ‘‘excludes’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘does not include’’, 

and by removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever 

it appears and adding in its place ‘‘setaside’’. 

§ 97.711 [Amended] 

■ 65. Section 97.711 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and 

(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30 

of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory 

text, by adding after ‘‘approved’’ each 

time it appears the word ‘‘under’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this chapter’’; and 

■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing 

‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘of this section’’. 

§ 97.712 [Amended] 

■ 66. Section 97.712 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing 

‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing 

‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding 

after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of 

this section’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding 

after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’; 

and 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by 

removing ‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and by 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’. 

§ 97.721 [Amended] 

■ 67. Section 97.721 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by 

removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘periods’’’; 

■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by 

removing ‘‘§ 52.39(h) and (i)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’; 

and 

■ c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the 

date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date 

15 days after the date’’, and by removing 

the comma before ‘‘described’’. 

§ 97.725 [Amended] 

■ 68. Section 97.725 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by 

adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ 

before ‘‘any adjustments’’; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by 

removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word 

‘‘at’’. 

§ 97.728 [Amended] 

■ 69. Section 97.728 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (a)’’. 

§ 97.730 [Amended] 

■ 70. Section 97.730 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the heading of paragraph 

(a); 

■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of 

a CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit’’, by adding 

‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following 

dates’’ each time it appears, and by 

removing the final period and adding in 

its place a colon; 

■ c. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) introductory text; 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); 

■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon 

and adding in its place a period; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ g. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding 

after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this 

chapter’’. 

§ 97.731 [Amended] 

■ 71. Section 97.731 is amended by: 

■ a. Italicizing the headings of 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i) 

through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), 

and (d)(3)(v); 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘§ ’’; and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs 

(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3). 

§ 97.734 [Amended] 

■ 72. Section 97.734 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’ 

before ‘‘requirements’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory 

text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by 

adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final 

colon; 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and 

■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing 

‘‘For a unit that commences commercial 

operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by 

removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the 

third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which 

case reporting shall commence in the 

quarter covering January 1, 2015 

through March 31, 2015’’. 

[FR Doc. 2015–29796 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2