Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31915 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves a special local regulation on 

one day lasting from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 

p.m., prohibiting traffic from 

approaching the barges. Normally such 

actions are categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph L 63(b) 

of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05– 

1. 

■ 2. Add § 100.T07–0163 to read as 

follows: 

§ 100.T07–0163 Special Local Regulation; 

Carolina Boat Bash, New River Inlet, SC. 

(a) Location. This rule establishes a 

temporary local regulation on all waters 

within a 500 yard radius of the barge, 

from which the barge will be placed at 

position 33°51′.253′′ N 078°32′.781′′ W 

in Little River Inlet, Little River, SC. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

COTP in the enforcement of the 

regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the COTP by telephone at 843– 

740–7050, or a designated 

representative via VHF radio on channel 

16, to request authorization. If 

authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area is granted by the COTP or 

a designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This rule will 

be enforced on August 18, 2018 from 

11:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

J.W. Reed, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14615 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0225; FRL–9980–53– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT92 

Determination Regarding Good 

Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (CSAPR Update) 

fully addresses certain states’ 

obligations under Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding 

interstate pollution transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 

Update, published on October 26, 2016, 

promulgated Federal Implementation 

Plans (FIPs) for 22 states in the eastern 

U.S. In the final CSAPR Update, based 

on information available at that time, 

the EPA could not conclude that the 

rule fully addressed CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for 21 of the 

22 CSAPR Update states. This action 

proposes a determination that, based on 

additional information and analysis, the 

CSAPR Update fully addresses this CAA 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for all remaining CSAPR Update states. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to determine 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31916 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

that there will be no remaining 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

in the eastern U.S. in 2023. Therefore, 

with the CSAPR Update fully 

implemented, these states are not 

expected to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In 

accord with this proposed 

determination, the EPA proposes to 

determine that it has no outstanding, 

unfulfilled obligation under CAA 

section 110(c)(1) to establish additional 

requirements for sources in these states 

to further reduce transported ozone 

pollution under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. As a result of this 

finding, this action proposes minor 

revisions to the existing CSAPR Update 

regulations to reflect that the CSAPR 

Update FIPs fully address CAA section 

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

determination would apply to states 

currently subject to CSAPR Update FIPs 

as well as any states for which EPA has 

approved replacement of CSAPR Update 

FIPs with CSAPR Update SIPs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 31, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2018–0225, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 

Public hearing. The EPA will be 

holding one public hearing on the 

proposed Determination Regarding 

Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard. The hearing will be held to 

accept oral comments on the proposal. 

The hearing will be held on August 1, 

2018 in Washington DC. The hearing 

will begin at 9:00 a.m. (local time) and 

will conclude at 6:00 p.m. (local time) 

or two hours after the last registered 

speaker. The hearing will be held at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 

Main Floor Room 1153, 1201 

Constitution Avenue NW, in 

Washington, DC 20460. Because this 

hearing is being held at a U.S. 

government facility, individuals 

planning to attend the hearing should be 

prepared to show valid picture 

identification to the security staff in 

order to gain access to the meeting 

room. No large signs will be allowed in 

the building, cameras may only be used 

outside of the building, and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. 

The EPA website for the rulemaking, 

which includes the proposal and 

supporting materials, can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

proposed-csapr-close-out. 

If you would like to present oral 

testimony at the public hearing, please 

register online at https://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/forms/public-hearingproposed-csapr-close-out or contact Mr. 

Brian Fisher, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air 

Markets Division, (MS 6204–M), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, telephone (202) 343 9633, 

email address is fisher.brian@epa.gov, 

no later than 2 business days prior to 

the public hearing. If using email, please 

provide the following information: Time 

you wish to speak (morning, afternoon, 

evening), name, affiliation, address, 

email address, and telephone number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Fisher, Clean Air Markets 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

343–9633; email address: fisher.brian@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated entities. Entities regulated 

under the CSAPR Update are fossil fuelfired boilers and stationary combustion 

turbines that serve generators producing 

electricity for sale, including combined 

cycle units and units operating as part 

of systems that cogenerate electricity 

and other useful energy output. 

Regulated categories and entities 

include: 

Category NAICS * 

code 

Examples of 

potentially 

regulated 

industries 

Industry ........ 221112 Fossil fuel-fired 

electric power 

generation. 

* 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. To determine whether your 

facility is affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability provisions in 40 CFR 

97.804. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of the CSAPR Update 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section above. 

Outline. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information 

in this preamble. 

I. General Information 

States Covered by This Action 

II. Background and Legal Authority 

A. Ground-Level Ozone Pollution and 

Public Health 

B. The EPA’s Statutory Authority for This 

Proposed Action 

C. Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS 

D. Summary of the CSAPR Update 

III. Proposed Determination Regarding Good 

Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

A. Analytic Approach 

B. Selection of a Future Analytic Year 

1. Attainment Dates for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

2. Feasibility of Control Strategies To 

Reduce Ozone Season NOX

3. Focusing on 2023 for Analysis 

C. Air Quality Analysis 

1. Definition of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

2. Overview of Air Quality Modeling 

Platform 

3. Emissions Inventories 

4. Air Quality Modeling To Identify 

Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors 

5. Pollutant Transport From Upwind States 

D. Proposed Determination 

IV. Statutory Authority and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31917 

1For more information on the human health and 

welfare and ecosystem effects associated with 

ambient ozone exposure, see the EPA’s 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) in the docket for this rule and also found 

in the docket for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0169–0057. 

2EPA. 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

v2. Released 2/2018 and available at https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories. 

3Rasmussen, D.J. et al. (2011). Ground-level 

ozone-temperature relationships in the eastern US: 

A monthly climatology for evaluating chemistryclimate models. Atmospheric Environment 47: 142– 

153. 

4High ozone concentrations have also been 

observed in cold months, where a few areas in the 

western U.S. have experienced high levels of local 

VOC and NOX emissions that have formed ozone 

when snow is on the ground and temperatures are 

near or below freezing. 

5Bloomer, B.J., J.W. Stehr, C.A. Piety, R.J. 

Salawitch, and R.R. Dickerson (2009). Observed 

relationships of ozone air pollution with 

temperature and emissions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 

L09803. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) 

and (d) 

I. General Information 

Within this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ should be interpreted to mean the 

U.S. EPA. 

Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2018–0225 (available at 

http://www.regulations.gov). 

Information related to the proposed 

action and the public hearing is 

available at the website: https://

www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

States Covered by This Action 

In the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504 

(Oct. 26, 2016), the EPA promulgated 

FIPs intended to address 22 eastern 

states’ obligations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the 

‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ with respect 

to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The good 

neighbor provision requires upwind 

states to control their emissions that 

impact air quality problems in 

downwind states. Based on information 

available when the CSAPR Update was 

finalized, the EPA was unable to 

determine at that time that the FIPs fully 

addressed good neighbor obligations 

under this NAAQS for 21 of the 22 

states. The EPA has subsequently 

proposed to approve a draft SIP which, 

if finalized, would fully address the 

good neighbor obligation for one of 

these states, Kentucky. In this action, 

the EPA proposes to determine that, 

with CSAPR Update implementation, 

the 20 remaining states’ good neighbor 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

are fully addressed. In accord with this 

determination, the EPA would have no 

further obligation under CAA section 

110(c) to establish requirements for 

power plants or any other emissions 

sources in these states to further reduce 

transported ozone pollution under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to 

this NAAQS. 

The two states among the 22 CSAPR 

Update states that are not covered by 

this action are Tennessee and Kentucky. 

With respect to Tennessee, the EPA 

already determined in the final CSAPR 

Update that implementation of the 

state’s emissions budget would fully 

eliminate the state’s significant 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

because the downwind air quality 

problems to which the state was linked 

were projected to be resolved after 

implementation of the CSAPR Update. 

81 FR 74540. With respect to Kentucky, 

the EPA has proposed in a separate 

action to approve the state’s draft SIP 

submittal demonstrating that no 

additional emissions reductions beyond 

those required by the CSAPR Update are 

necessary to address the state’s good 

neighbor obligation with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 17123 (April 

18, 2018). See Table I.A–1 for a list of 

states covered by this proposal. 

TABLE I.A–1—STATES COVERED BY

THIS PROPOSED DETERMINATION

REGARDING GOOD NEIGHBOR OBLIGATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE

NAAQS 

State 

Alabama. 

Arkansas. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Louisiana. 

Maryland. 

Michigan. 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

New Jersey. 

New York. 

Ohio. 

Oklahoma. 

Pennsylvania. 

Texas. 

Virginia. 

West Virginia. 

Wisconsin. 

II. Background and Legal Authority 

A. Ground-Level Ozone Pollution and 

Public Health 

Ground-level ozone causes a variety 

of negative effects on human health, 

vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, 

acute and chronic exposure to ozone is 

associated with premature mortality and 

a number of morbidity effects, such as 

asthma exacerbation. In ecosystems, 

ozone exposure causes visible foliar 

injury in some plants, decreases growth 

in some plants, and affects ecosystem 

community composition.1

In this proposed action, consistent 

with previous rulemakings described in 

section II.B, the EPA relies on analysis 

that reflects the regional nature of 

transported ground-level ozone 

pollution. Ground-level ozone is not 

emitted directly into the air, but is a 

secondary air pollutant created by 

chemical reactions between nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), 

methane (CH4), and non-methane 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in 

the presence of sunlight. Emissions from 

mobile sources, electric generating units 

(EGUs), industrial facilities, gasoline 

vapors, and chemical solvents are some 

of the major anthropogenic sources of 

ozone precursors. NOX emissions from 

the mobile source category lead all 

sectors and were more than double 

emissions from the second-highest 

emitting sector, and accounted from 

more than half of the national NOX

emissions in 2014.2 The potential for 

ground-level ozone formation increases 

during periods with warmer 

temperatures and stagnant air masses. 

Therefore, ozone levels are generally 

higher during the summer months.3 4

Ground-level ozone concentrations and 

temperature are highly correlated in the 

eastern U.S., with observed ozone 

increases of 2–3 parts per billion (ppb) 

per degree Celsius reported.5

Precursor emissions can be 

transported downwind directly or, after 

transformation in the atmosphere, as 

ozone. Studies have established that 

ozone formation, atmospheric residence, 

and transport occur on a regional scale 

(i.e., hundreds of miles) over much of 

the eastern U.S. 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. 

Numerous observational studies have 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31918 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

6Bergin, M.S. et al. (2007). Regional air quality: 

local and interstate impacts of NOX and SO2

emissions on ozone and fine particulate matter in 

the eastern United States. Environmental Sci & 

Tech. 41: 4677–4689. 

7 Jiang, G.; Fast, J.D. (2004). Modeling the effects 

of VOC and NOX emission sources on ozone 

formation in Houston during the TexAQS 2000 field 

campaign. Atmospheric Environment 38: 5071– 

5085. 

8Hidy, G.M. and Blanchard C.L. (2015). Precursor 

reductions and ground-level ozone in the 

Continental United States. J. of Air & Waste 

Management Assn. 65, 10. 

9Simon, H. et al. (2015). Ozone trends across the 

United States over a period of decreasing NOX and 

VOC emissions. Environmental Science & 

Technology 49, 186–195. 

10 Gilliland, A.B. et al. (2008). Dynamic 

evaluation of regional air quality models: Assessing 

changes in O3 stemming from changes in emissions 

and meteorology. Atmospheric Environment 42: 

5110–5123. 

11CASTNET is the EPA’s Clean Air Status and 

Trends Network. AQS is the EPA’s Air Quality 

System. 

12Hou, Strickland & Liao. ‘‘Contributions of 

regional air pollutant emissions to ozone and fine 

particulate matter-related mortalities in eastern U.S. 

urban areas’’. Environmental Research, Feb. 2015. 

Available at https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0013935

114004113/1-s2.0-S0013935114004113-main.pdf?_

tid=78c88101-fa6e-4e75-a65c-f56746905

e7d&acdnat=1525175812_0e62553b83c

9ffa1105aa306a478e8bb 

13 Ge ́go et al. (2007). Observation-based 

assessment of the impact of nitrogen oxides 

emissions reductions on O3 air quality over the 

eastern United States. J. of Applied Meteorology 

and Climatology 46: 994–1008. 

14 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). 

15See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 

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

16The EPA’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., Memorandum from Stephen D. 

Page on Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 

2013). 

demonstrated the transport of ozone and 

its precursors and the impact of upwind 

emissions on high concentrations of 

ozone pollution.6

The EPA concluded in several 

previous rulemakings (summarized in 

section II.B) that interstate ozone 

transport can be an important 

component of peak ozone 

concentrations during the summer 

ozone season and that NOX control 

strategies are effective for reducing 

regional-scale ozone transport. Model 

assessments have looked at impacts on 

peak ozone concentrations after 

potential emissions reduction scenarios 

for NOX and VOCs for NOX-limited and 

VOC-limited areas. For example, Jiang 

and Fast concluded that NOX emissions 

reduction strategies are effective in 

lowering ozone mixing ratios in urban 

areas and Liao et al. showed that NOX

reductions result in lower peak ozone 

concentrations in non-attainment areas 

in the Mid-Atlantic.7 Assessments of 

ozone 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) also show 

the importance of NOX emissions on 

ozone formation. This analysis is in the 

docket for this rule and also can be 

found in the docket for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS regulatory impact analysis, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0169 

(document ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0169–0057). 

Studies have found that NOX

emissions reductions can be effective in 

reducing ozone pollution as quantified 

by the form of the 2008 ozone standard, 

8-hour peak concentrations. 

Specifically, studies have found that 

NOX emissions reductions from EGUs, 

mobile sources, and other source 

categories can be effective in reducing 

the upper-end of the cumulative ozone 

distribution in the summer on a regional 

scale.8 Analysis of air quality 

monitoring data trends shows 

reductions in summertime ozone 

concurrent with implementation of NOX

reduction programs.9 Gilliland et al. 

examined the NOX SIP Call and 

presented reductions in observed versus 

modeled ozone concentrations in the 

eastern U.S. downwind from major NOX

sources.10 The results showed 

significant reductions in ozone 

concentrations (10–25 percent) from 

observed measurements (CASTNET and 

AQS) 11 between 2002 and 2005, linking 

reductions in EGU NOX emissions from 

upwind states with ozone reductions 

downwind of the major source areas.12

Additionally, Ge ́go et al. showed that 

ground-level ozone concentrations were 

significantly reduced after 

implementation of the NOX SIP Call.13

Mobile sources also account for a 

large share of the NOX emissions 

inventory (i.e., about 7.3 million tons 

per year in the 2011 base year, which 

represented more than 50% of 

continental U.S. NOX emissions), and 

the EPA recognizes that emissions 

reductions achieved from this sector as 

well can reduce transported ozone 

pollution. The EPA has national 

programs that serve to reduce emissions 

from all contributors to the mobile 

source inventory (i.e., projected NOX

emissions reductions of about 4.7 

million tons per year between the 2011 

base year and the 2023 future analytical 

year). A detailed discussion of the EPA’s 

mobile source emissions reduction 

programs can be found at www.epa.gov/ 

otaq. 

In light of the regional nature of ozone 

transport discussed herein, and given 

that NOX emissions from mobile sources 

are being addressed in separate national 

rules, in the CSAPR Update (as in 

previous regional ozone transport 

actions) the EPA relied on regional 

analysis and required regional ozoneseason NOX emissions reductions from 

EGUs to address interstate transport of 

ozone. 

B. The EPA’s Statutory Authority for 

This Proposed Action 

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 

underpinnings for this rule. The most 

relevant portions of section 110 are 

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

(including 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.14 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.15

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.16 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 

later and that are the focus of this rule. 

Section 110(c)(1) requires the 

Administrator to promulgate a FIP at 

any time within two 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31919 

17 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1). 

18 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

19 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). As originally 

promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also addressed good 

neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, but the EPA subsequently stayed the rule’s 

provisions with respect to that standard. 40 CFR 

51.121(q). 

20 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

21 70 FR 21147 (May 12, 2005). See n.14 and main 

text, supra. 

22See n.17 and main text, supra. 

23 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006). 

24 76 FR 48208, 48217 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

25 76 FR 48208. 

26EPA has already approved SIPs fully replacing 

the original CSAPR FIPs for Alabama, 81 FR 59869 

(Aug. 31, 2016), Georgia, 82 FR 47930 (Oct. 13, 

2017), and South Carolina, 82 FR 47936 (Oct. 13, 

2017). 

27On 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) (EME Homer I), 

vacating CSAPR. The EPA sought review with the 

D.C. Circuit en banc and the D.C. Circuit declined 

to consider the EPA’s appeal en banc. EME 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). 

28On January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court 

granted the EPA’s petition for certiorari. EPA v. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 

(2013) (granting the EPA’s and other parties’ 

petitions for certiorari). On April 29, 2014, the 

Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the D.C. 

Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion. 

29 81 FR 74511. 

30One state, Kansas, was made newly subject to 

a CSAPR ozone season NOX requirement by the 

CSAPR Update. All other CSAPR Update states 

were already subject to ozone season NOX

requirements under the original CSAPR. 

31EPA has already approved a SIP fully replacing 

the CSAPR Update FIP for Alabama. 82 FR 46674 

(Oct. 6, 2017). 

a SIP submission, unless the state 

corrects the deficiency through a SIP 

revision that the Administrator 

approves before the FIP is 

promulgated.17

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

as the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’ 

provides the primary basis for this 

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 pollutant in 

amounts which will—(I) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other State with respect to any 

[NAAQS].’’ 18

The EPA has previously issued four 

rules interpreting and clarifying the 

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

for states in the eastern United States. 

These rules, and the associated court 

decisions addressing these rules, 

summarized here, 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.19 The rule required 22 states 

and the District of Columbia to amend 

their SIPs to reduce NOX emissions that 

contribute to ozone nonattainment in 

downwind states. The EPA set an ozone 

season NOX budget for each covered 

state, essentially a cap on ozone season 

NOX emissions in the state. Covered 

states were given the option to 

participate in a regional cap-and-trade 

program, known as the NOX Budget 

Trading Program (NBP), to achieve a 

large portion of the reductions. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) largely upheld the NOX SIP Call 

in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. 

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 

(2001). 

The EPA’s next rule addressing the 

good neighbor provision, Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), was promulgated 

in 2005 and addressed both the 1997 

PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS.20 CAIR 

required SIP revisions in 28 states and 

the District of Columbia to reduce 

emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/ 

or NOX—important precursors of 

regionally transported PM2.5 (SO2 and 

NOX) and ozone (NOX). As in the NOX

SIP Call, states were given the option to 

participate in regional cap-and-trade 

programs to achieve the reductions. 

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 

PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS. Those 

states were required by the CAA to have 

submitted good neighbor SIPs for those 

standards by July 2000 (i.e., three years 

after the standards were finalized).21

These findings of failure to submit 

triggered a 2-year clock for the EPA to 

issue FIPs to address interstate 

transport,22 and on March 15, 2006, the 

EPA promulgated FIPs to ensure that the 

emissions reductions required by CAIR 

would be achieved on schedule.23 CAIR 

was remanded to the EPA by the D.C. 

Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on 

reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. For more 

information on the legal issues 

underlying CAIR and the D.C. Circuit’s 

holding in North Carolina, refer to the 

preamble of the original CSAPR.24

In 2011, the EPA promulgated the 

original CSAPR to address the issues 

raised by the remand of CAIR. CSAPR 

addressed the two NAAQS at issue in 

CAIR and additionally addressed the 

good neighbor provision for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.25 CSAPR required 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 

align implementation 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 

emissions reductions. Each state can 

submit a good neighbor SIP at any time 

that, if approved by the EPA, would 

replace the CSAPR FIP for that state.26

CSAPR was the subject of an adverse 

decision by the D.C. Circuit in August 

2012,27 reversed in April 2014 by the 

Supreme Court,28 which largely upheld 

the rule, including EPA’s approach to 

addressing interstate transport in 

CSAPR, but remanded to the D.C. 

Circuit to consider other claims not 

addressed by the Court. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 

1584 (2014). On remand from the 

Supreme Court, in July 2015 the D.C. 

Circuit affirmed the EPA’s interpretation 

of various statutory provisions and the 

EPA’s technical decisions. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 

118 (2015) (EME Homer City II). 

However, the court also remanded the 

rule without vacatur for reconsideration 

of the EPA’s emissions budgets for 

certain states, which the court found 

may over-control those states’ emissions 

with respect to the downwind air 

quality problems to which the states 

were linked. Id. at 129–30, 138. For 

more information on the legal 

considerations of CSAPR and the court’s 

decisions in the EME Homer City 

litigation, refer to the preamble of the 

CSAPR Update.29

In 2016, the EPA promulgated the 

CSAPR Update to address interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

final rule generally updated the CSAPR 

ozone season NOX emissions budgets for 

22 states to achieve cost-effective NOX

emissions reductions from EGUs within 

those states.30 The CSAPR Update 

implemented these budgets through 

FIPs requiring sources to participate in 

a revised CSAPR ozone season NOX

allowance trading program. As under 

the original CSAPR, each state can 

submit a good neighbor SIP at any time 

that, if approved by the EPA, would 

replace the CSAPR Update FIP for that 

state.31 The final CSAPR Update also 

addressed the remand by the D.C. 

Circuit of certain states’ original CSAPR 

phase 2 ozone season NOX emissions 

budgets in EME Homer City II. The 

CSAPR Update is subject to pending 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31920 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

32 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). 

33These events are described in detail in section 

IV.A.2 of the CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74515. 

34This section of the preamble focuses on SIP and 

FIP actions for those states addressed in the CSAPR 

Update. The EPA has also acted on SIPs for other 

states not mentioned in this action. The 

memorandum, Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, more fully describes the 

good neighbor SIP status for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and is available in the docket for this 

action. 

35The two remaining states addressed in the 

findings of failure to submit (California and New 

Mexico) were not part of the CSAPR Update 

analysis and are not addressed in this rulemaking. 

36See the following actions: Indiana (81 FR 

38957, June 15, 2016); Kentucky (78 FR 14681, 

March 7, 2013); Louisiana (81 FR 53308, August 12, 

2016); New York (81 FR 58849, August 26, 2016); 

Ohio (81 FR 38957, June 15, 2016); Texas (81 FR 

53284, August 12, 2016); and Wisconsin (81 FR 

53309, August 12, 2016). 

legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit. 

Wisconsin v. EPA, No. 16–1406 (D.C. 

Cir. filed Nov. 23, 2016). Further 

information about the CSAPR Update 

can be found in section II.D of this 

notice. 

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

gives the Administrator the general 

authority to prescribe such regulations 

as are necessary to carry out functions 

under the Act.32 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) with respect to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In particular, 

the EPA is using its authority under 

sections 110 and 301 to make a 

determination that no further 

enforceable reductions in emissions of 

NOX are required under this provision 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for the states covered by this rule. The 

EPA is making minor revisions to the 

existing state-specific sections of the 

CSAPR Update regulations for all states 

covered by that action other than 

Kentucky and Tennessee. 

C. Good Neighbor Obligations for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA 

promulgated a revision to the NAAQS, 

lowering both the primary and 

secondary standards to 75 ppb. See 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone, Final Rule, 73 FR 16436 

(March 27, 2008). Specifically, the 

standards require that an area may not 

exceed 75 ppb using the 3-year average 

of the fourth highest 24-hour maximum 

8-hour rolling average ozone 

concentration. These revisions of the 

NAAQS, in turn, triggered a 3-year 

deadline for states to submit SIP 

revisions addressing infrastructure 

requirements under CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), including the 

good neighbor provision. Several events 

affected application of the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, including reconsideration of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and legal 

developments pertaining to the EPA’s 

original CSAPR, which created 

uncertainty surrounding the EPA’s 

statutory interpretation and 

implementation of the good neighbor 

provision.33 Notwithstanding these 

events, EPA ultimately affirmed that 

states’ good neighbor SIPs were due on 

March 12, 2011. 

The EPA subsequently took several 

actions that triggered the EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 110(c) to 

promulgate FIPs addressing the good 

neighbor provision for several states.34

First, 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 

(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 CSAPR Update 

finalized FIPs for 13 of these states 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). 

The EPA also determined in the CSAPR 

Update that the Agency had fully 

satisfied its FIP obligation as to nine 

additional states identified in the 

finding of failure to submit (Florida, 

Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New Hampshire, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont). 

The EPA determined that these states 

did not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 

FR 74506.35 On June 15, 2016 and July 

20, 2016, the EPA published additional 

rules finding that New Jersey and 

Maryland, respectively, also failed to 

submit transport SIPs for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. See 81 FR 38963 (June 15, 

2016) (effective July 15, 2016); 81 FR 

47040 (July 20, 2016) (Maryland, 

effective August 19, 2016). The finding 

actions triggered 2-year deadlines for 

the EPA to issue FIPs to address the 

good neighbor provision for Maryland 

by August 19, 2018, and New Jersey by 

July 15, 2018. The CSAPR Update 

finalized FIPs for these two states. 

In addition to the previously 

identified finding actions, the EPA also 

finalized disapproval or partial 

disapproval actions for SIPs submitted 

by Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, New 

York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.36

These disapprovals triggered the EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate FIPs to 

implement the requirements of the good 

neighbor provision for those states 

within 2 years of the effective date of 

each disapproval. The EPA promulgated 

CSAPR Update FIPs for Indiana, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. 

As discussed in more detail in the 

next section, in issuing the CSAPR 

Update, the EPA did not determine that 

it had entirely addressed the EPA’s 

outstanding CAA obligations to 

implement the good neighbor provision 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for 21 of 22 states covered by that rule. 

Accordingly, the CSAPR Update did not 

fully satisfy the EPA’s obligation to 

address the good neighbor provision 

requirements for those states by 

approving SIPs, issuing FIPs, or some 

combination of those two actions. The 

EPA found that the CSAPR Update FIP 

fully addressed the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

only with respect to Tennessee. 

The EPA notes that it has also already 

separately proposed an action to fully 

address Kentucky’s good neighbor 

obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

83 FR 17123 (Apr. 18, 2018). On May 

23, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California issued an 

order requiring the EPA to take a final 

action fully addressing the good 

neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for Kentucky by June 30, 2018. 

See Order, Sierra Club v. Pruitt, No. 

3:15–cv–04328 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2017). 

On February 28, 2018, Kentucky 

submitted to the EPA a draft SIP 

addressing the remaining good neighbor 

obligation. On May 10, 2018, Kentucky 

submitted their final SIP to EPA. The 

EPA proposed to approve the state’s 

draft SIP, 83 FR 17123 (April 18, 2018), 

and intends to take an appropriate final 

action that would address this 

obligation for Kentucky consistent with 

the court-ordered deadline. 

As noted previously, subsequent to 

the promulgation of the CSAPR Update, 

the EPA approved a SIP fully replacing 

the FIP for Alabama. 82 FR 46674 

(October 6, 2017). In that SIP approval, 

the EPA found that the rule partially 

satisfies Alabama’s good neighbor 

obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Thus, the EPA continues to have an 

obligation, stemming from the July 13, 

2015 findings notice, to fully address 

the good neighbor provision 

requirements for the 2008 NAAQS with 

respect to Alabama. As previously 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31921 

37The FIP deadline is two years from the effective 

date of the SIP disapproval or Finding of Failure to 

Submit, which generally trails the publication date 

by 30 or 45 days. 

38Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

39 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding 

that the EPA must coordinate interstate transport 

compliance deadlines with downwind attainment 

deadlines). 

40 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 

51.1103. Ozone nonattainment areas are classified 

as either Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or 

Extreme, based on the severity of the air quality 

problem in the area. Areas with more acute air 

quality problems are required to implement more 

stringent control requirements and are provided 

additional time to attain the NAAQS. See CAA 

sections 181 and 182, 42 U.S.C. 7511, 7511a. 

noted, other states have also submitted 

SIPs, some of which the EPA has 

approved and some of which still 

remain pending. However, these states 

are not the subject of this rulemaking 

and these actions are therefore not 

described in detail in this section. 

Table II.C–1 summarizes the statutory 

deadline for the EPA to address its FIP 

obligation under CAA section 110(c) 

and the event that activated the EPA’s 

obligation for each of the 20 remaining 

CSAPR Update states addressed in this 

proposed action. For more information 

regarding the actions triggering the 

EPA’s FIP obligation and the EPA’s 

action on SIPs addressing the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, see the memorandum, Status 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS, in the docket for this 

action. 

TABLE II.C–1—EVENTS THAT ACTIVATED EPA’S OBLIGATION AND STATUTORY FIP DEADLINES

State Type of action 

(Federal Register citation, publication date) 

Statutory FIP 

deadline 37

Alabama .............................. Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Arkansas ............................. Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Illinois .................................. Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Indiana ................................ SIP disapproval (81 FR 38957, 6/15/2016) ..................................................................................... 7/15/2018 

Iowa ..................................... Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Kansas ................................ Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Louisiana ............................. SIP disapproval (81 FR 53308, 8/12/2016) ..................................................................................... 9/12/2018 

Maryland ............................. Finding of Failure to Submit (81 FR 47040, 7/20/2016) ................................................................. 8/19/2018 

Michigan .............................. Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Mississippi ........................... Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Missouri ............................... Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

New Jersey ......................... Finding of Failure to Submit (81 FR 38963, 6/15/2016) ................................................................. 7/15/2018 

New York ............................ SIP disapproval (81 FR 58849, 8/12/2016) ..................................................................................... 9/26/2018 

Ohio ..................................... SIP disapproval (81 FR 38957, 6/15/2016) ..................................................................................... 7/15/2018 

Oklahoma ............................ Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Pennsylvania ....................... Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Texas .................................. SIP disapproval (81 FR 53284, 8/12/2016) ..................................................................................... 9/12/2018 

Virginia ................................ Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

West Virginia ....................... Finding of Failure to Submit (80 FR 39961, 7/13/2015) ................................................................. 8/12/2017 

Wisconsin ............................ Partial SIP disapproval as to prong 2 (81 FR 53309, 8/12/2016) ................................................... 9/12/2018 

D. Summary of the CSAPR Update 

On October 16, 2016, the EPA 

finalized the CSAPR Update. The 

purpose of the CSAPR Update was to 

protect public health and welfare by 

reducing interstate pollution transport 

that significantly contributes to 

nonattainment, or interferes with 

maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in the eastern U.S. As discussed in 

section II.C, the EPA finalized a FIP for 

each of the 22 states subject to the 

rule,38 either having previously found 

that those states failed to submit a 

complete good neighbor SIP (15 states) 

or having issued a final rule 

disapproving their good neighbor SIP 

submittals (7 states). For the 22 states 

covered by the CSAPR Update, the EPA 

promulgated EGU ozone season NOX

emissions budgets, implemented 

through a regional allowance trading 

program, to reduce interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

during the ozone season (May– 

September), beginning with the 2017 

ozone season. 

The EPA aligned its analysis for the 

CSAPR Update (and implementation of 

the trading program) with relevant 

attainment dates for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in North Carolina v. 

EPA.39 The EPA’s final 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule 

established the attainment deadline of 

July 20, 2018 for ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as Moderate.40 Because 

the attainment date falls during the 2018 

ozone season, the 2017 ozone season 

was the last full season from which data 

could be used to determine attainment 

of the NAAQS by the July 20, 2018 

attainment date. Therefore, consistent 

with the court’s instruction in North 

Carolina, the EPA established and 

implemented emissions budgets starting 

with the 2017 ozone season. 81 FR 

74507. 

To establish the CSAPR Update 

emissions budgets, the EPA followed a 

four-step analytic process that has been 

used in each of the Agency’s regional 

interstate transport rulemakings. The 

four-step interstate transport framework 

is described in more detail in section 

III.A. To summarize, in step 1, the 

Agency identified downwind receptors 

that are expected to have problems 

attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. In 

step 2, the EPA examined which 

upwind states contribute to the 

nonattainment or maintenance receptors 

identified in step 1. In step 3, the EPA 

quantified the upwind emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance. The EPA quantified 

significantly contributing emissions 

from upwind states by evaluating levels 

of uniform NOX control stringency, 

represented by an estimated marginal 

cost per ton of NOX reduced. The EPA 

applied a multi-factor test to evaluate 

cost, available emissions reductions, 

and downwind air quality impacts to 

determine the appropriate level of 

uniform NOX control stringency that 

addressed the impacts of interstate 

transport on downwind nonattainment 

or maintenance receptors. The EPA used 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31922 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

41The ozone season NOX allowance trading 

program created under the original CSAPR was 

renamed the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 

Trading Program and now applies only to sources 

in Georgia. In the CSAPR Update, the EPA found 

that Georgia did not contribute to interstate 

transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

but the state has an ongoing ozone season NOX

requirement under the original CSAPR. 

42Projected AQAT design values for the $1400/ 

ton policy case are available in Tables D–6 and 

D–7 of the CSAPR Update ‘‘Ozone Transport Policy 

Analysis Final Rule TSD’’ (August 2016), Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500–0555. 

43See EPA’s Air Quality Assessment Tool from 

the CSAPR Update in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

this multi-factor assessment to gauge the 

extent to which emissions reductions 

should be implemented beginning in 

2017 and to ensure those reductions do 

not represent over-control. In step 4, the 

EPA identified emissions budgets for 

significantly contributing states that 

reflected the absence of significant 

contribution and provided for 

implementation of the budgets through 

an allowance trading program. 

The multi-factor test generated a 

‘‘knee in the curve,’’ i.e., a point at 

which the cost-effectiveness of the 

emissions reductions is maximized, so 

named for the discernable turning point 

observable in a cost curve. See 81 FR 

74550. In the CSAPR Update this was at 

the point where emissions budgets 

reflected a control stringency with an 

estimated marginal cost of $1,400 per 

ton of NOX reduced. This level of 

stringency in emissions budgets 

represented the level at which 

incremental EGU NOX reduction 

potential and corresponding downwind 

ozone air quality improvements were 

maximized—relative to other cost levels 

evaluated—with respect to marginal 

cost. That is, the ratio of emissions 

reductions to marginal cost and the ratio 

of ozone improvements to marginal cost 

were maximized relative to the other 

emissions budget levels evaluated. The 

EPA found that highly cost-effective 

EGU NOX reductions were available to 

make meaningful and timely 

improvements in downwind ozone air 

quality to address interstate ozone 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 

the 2017 ozone season. 81 FR 74508. 

Further, the agency’s evaluation showed 

that emissions budgets reflecting the 

$1,400 per ton cost threshold did not 

over-control upwind states’ emissions 

relative to either the downwind air 

quality problems to which they were 

linked or the 1 percent contribution 

threshold in step 2 that triggered their 

further evaluation in step 3. Id. at 

74551–52. As a result, the EPA finalized 

EGU ozone season NOX emissions 

budgets developed using uniform 

control stringency represented by 

$1,400 per ton. 

To implement the CSAPR Update’s 

emissions reductions, the EPA 

promulgated FIPs requiring power 

plants in covered states to participate in 

the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowance trading program starting in 

2017.41 CSAPR’s trading programs and 

the EPA’s prior emissions trading 

programs (e.g., CAIR and the NOX

Budget Trading Program) provide a 

proven implementation framework for 

achieving emissions 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 CSAPR 

allowance trading programs, the EPA 

applied an implementation framework 

that was shaped by notice and comment 

in previous rulemakings and reflected 

the evolution of these programs in 

response to court decisions and 

practical experience gained by states, 

industry, and the EPA. 

Based on information available at the 

time of its promulgation, the EPA was 

unable to conclude that the CSAPR 

Update fully addressed most of the 

covered states’ good neighbor 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

81 FR 74521. Information available at 

the time indicated that, even with 

CSAPR Update implementation, several 

downwind receptors were expected to 

continue having problems attaining and 

maintaining this NAAQS and that 

emissions from upwind states were 

expected to continue to contribute 

greater than or equal to 1 percent of the 

NAAQS to these areas during the 2017 

ozone season. Id. at 74551–52. Further, 

the EPA could not conclude at that time 

whether additional EGU and non-EGU 

reductions implemented on a longer 

timeframe than 2017 would be feasible 

and cost-effective to address states’ good 

neighbor obligations for this NAAQS. 

As noted, the EPA premised its 

conclusion that the CSAPR Update may 

not fully address states’ good neighbor 

obligations in part on the Agency’s 

assessment that air quality problems 

would persist at downwind receptors in 

2017 even with CSAPR Update 

implementation. The EPA’s assessment 

of CSAPR Update implementation using 

the Air Quality Assessment Tool 

(AQAT) indicated that certain eastern 

air quality monitors would continue to 

have problems attaining and 

maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

2017. 81 FR 74550–52. Specifically, 

projected nonattainment receptors 

remained in Connecticut, Texas, and 

Wisconsin, while projected 

maintenance-only receptors remained in 

Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, New 

York, and Texas.42 See Table II.C–1 for 

a list of remaining nonattainment 

receptors and Table II.C–2 for a list of 

remaining maintenance-only receptors. 

(The EPA’s approach to defining 

nonattainment and maintenance-only 

receptors is explained in section III.C.1 

below.) 

TABLE II.C–2—REMAINING 2017 PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S. 

Monitor ID State County 

090019003 Connecticut .... Fairfield. 

090099002 Connecticut .... New Haven. 

480391004 Texas ............. Brazoria. 

484392003 Texas ............. Tarrant. 

484393009 Texas ............. Tarrant. 

551170006 Wisconsin ....... Sheboygan. 

TABLE II.C–3—REMAINING 2017 PROJECTED MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN U.S. 

Monitor ID State County 

090010017 Connecticut .... Fairfield. 

090013007 Connecticut .... Fairfield. 

240251001 Maryland ........ Harford. 

260050003 Michigan ......... Allegan. 

360850067 New York ....... Richmond. 

361030002 New York ....... Suffolk. 

481210034 Texas ............. Denton. 

482010024 Texas ............. Harris. 

482011034 Texas ............. Harris. 

482011039 Texas ............. Harris. 

The EPA’s analysis also showed that 

21 of the 22 CSAPR Update states would 

continue to contribute equal to or 

greater than 1 percent of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS to at least one remaining 

nonattainment or maintenance receptor 

in 2017.43 Thus, for those 21 states, the 

EPA could not, based on information 

available in the CSAPR Update 

rulemaking, make an air quality-based 

conclusion that the CSAPR Update 

would fully resolve states’ good 

neighbor obligations with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. (For one state, 

Tennessee, the EPA determined that the 

CSAPR Update fully resolved its good 

neighbor obligation.) 

Further, it was not feasible for the 

EPA to complete an emissions control 

analysis that would otherwise be 

necessary to evaluate full elimination of 

each state’s significant contribution to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance and also ensure that 

emissions reductions would be achieved 

by 2017. 81 FR at 74522. Specifically, 

the EPA was unable to fully consider 

both non-EGU ozone season NOX


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31923 

44With respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the 

EPA recently provided information to states to 

inform their development of SIPs to address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In a memorandum dated 

March 27, 2018, the Agency noted that, in 

developing their own rules, states have flexibility 

to follow the familiar 4-step transport framework 

(using the EPA’s analytical approach or somewhat 

different analytical approaches within these steps) 

or alternative frameworks, so long as their chosen 

approach has adequate technical justification and is 

consistent with the requirements of the CAA. 

reductions and further EGU reductions 

that may have been achievable after 

2017. Id. at 74521. The EPA did not 

quantify non-EGU stationary source 

emissions reductions to address 

interstate ozone transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR Update for 

two reasons. First, the EPA explained 

that there was greater uncertainty in the 

EPA’s assessment of non-EGU NOX

mitigation potential, and that more time 

would be required for states and the 

EPA to improve non-EGU point source 

data and pollution control assumptions 

before we could develop emissions 

reduction obligations based on that data. 

Id. at 74542. Second, the EPA explained 

that we did not believe that significant, 

certain, and meaningful non-EGU NOX

reductions were feasible for the 2017 

ozone season. Id. Many commenters 

generally agreed with the EPA that nonEGU emissions reductions were not 

readily available for the 2017 ozone 

season but some advocated that such 

reductions should be included as 

appropriate in future mitigation actions. 

Id. at 74521–22. With respect to EGUs, 

the EPA concluded that additional 

control strategies, such as the 

implementation of new post-combustion 

controls, would take several years to 

implement, which was beyond the 2017 

ozone season targeted in the CSAPR 

Update. Id. at 74541. Thus, the EPA 

could not make an emissions reductionbased conclusion that the CSAPR 

Update would fully resolve states’ good 

neighbor obligations with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS because the 

reductions required by the CSAPR 

Update were EGU-only and because the 

EPA focused the policy analysis for the 

CSAPR Update on reductions available 

by the beginning of the 2017 ozone 

season. 

Finally, in promulgating the CSAPR 

Update, the EPA stated its belief that it 

was beneficial to implement, without 

further delay, EGU NOX reductions that 

were achievable in the near term, 

particularly before the Moderate area 

attainment date of 2018. 

Notwithstanding that additional 

reductions may be required to fully 

address the states’ interstate transport 

obligations, the EGU NOX emissions 

reductions implemented by the final 

rule were needed for upwind states to 

eliminate their significant contribution 

to nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and to assist downwind states with 

ozone nonattainment areas that are 

required to attain the standard by July 

20, 2018. 

As a result of the remaining air 

quality problems and the limitations on 

the EPA’s analysis, for all but one of the 

21 states at issue, the EPA did not 

determine in the CSAPR Update that the 

CSAPR Update fully addressed those 

states’ downwind air quality impacts 

under the good neighbor provision for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. at 74521. 

For one state, Tennessee, the EPA 

determined in the final CSAPR Update 

that Tennessee’s emissions budget fully 

eliminated the state’s significant 

contribution to downwind 

nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

because the downwind air quality 

problems to which the state was linked 

were projected to be resolved with 

implementation of the CSAPR Update. 

Id. at 74552. 

III. Proposed Determination Regarding 

Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS 

As described in section II.D, in the 

CSAPR Update the EPA promulgated 

FIPs intended to address the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, but could not at that time 

determine that those FIPs fully address 

2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor 

obligations for 21 of the 22 CSAPR 

Update states, based on information 

available when the rule was finalized. 

As a result, the CSAPR Update did not 

fully satisfy the EPA’s obligation to 

issue FIPs or approve SIPs to address 

those states’ good neighbor obligations 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this 

notice, the EPA proposes to determine 

that, based on additional information 

and analysis, the CSAPR Update fully 

addresses 20 of these states’ good 

neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. In particular, the EPA proposes 

to determine that there will be no 

remaining nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in the eastern 

U.S. in 2023. Therefore, after the CSAPR 

Update is implemented, these states are 

not expected to contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 

obligation as to the remaining state 

(Kentucky) is currently being addressed 

in a separate action. 

A. Analytic Approach 

The Agency is evaluating its 

determination regarding CSAPR Update 

states’ remaining good neighbor 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

by applying the same approach used in 

previous federal actions addressing 

regional interstate transport of ozone 

pollution, including the CSAPR Update 

which addressed the same NAAQS at 

issue in this rulemaking. Each of these 

rulemakings followed the same fourstep interstate transport framework to 

quantify and implement emissions 

reductions necessary to address the 

interstate transport requirements of the 

good neighbor provision.44 These steps 

are summarized in the following four 

paragraphs. 

Step 1: Identify downwind air quality 

problems relative to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA has historically 

identified downwind receptors with air 

quality problems using air quality 

modeling projections and, where 

appropriate, considering monitored 

ozone data for a future compliance year. 

In the CSAPR Update, the agency relied 

on modeled and monitored data to 

identify not only those receptors 

expected to be in nonattainment with 

the ozone NAAQS, but also those 

receptors that may have difficulty 

maintaining the NAAQS, 

notwithstanding clean monitored data 

or projected attainment. 

Step 2: Determine which upwind 

states are ‘‘linked’’ to these identified 

downwind air quality problems and 

thereby warrant further analysis to 

determine whether their emissions 

violate the good neighbor provision. In 

the CSAPR Update, the EPA identified 

such upwind states as those modeled to 

contribute to a downwind receptor at or 

above an air quality threshold 

equivalent to one percent of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Step 3: For states linked to downwind 

air quality problems, identify upwind 

emissions on a statewide basis that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of a standard in any area. 

In all of the EPA’s prior rulemakings 

addressing interstate ozone pollution 

transport, the Agency identified and 

apportioned emissions reduction 

responsibility among multiple upwind 

states linked to downwind air quality 

problems by considering feasible NOX

control strategies and using cost-based 

and air quality-based criteria to evaluate 

regionally uniform NOX control 

strategies that were then used to 

quantify the amount of a linked upwind 

state’s emissions, if any, that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31924 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

45Affected sources have participated in EPAadministered allowance trading programs under 

both SIPs and FIPs. 

46Areas classified as Marginal nonattainment 

areas are required to submit emissions inventories 

and implement a nonattainment new source review 

permitting program, but are not generally required 

to implement controls at existing sources. See CAA 

section 182(a), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). 

47Clean Air Act section 184 contains the 

exception to this general rule: states that are part 

of the Ozone Transport Region are required to 

provide SIPs that include specific enforceable 

control measures, similar to those for 

nonattainment areas, that apply to the whole state, 

even for areas designated attainment for the ozone 

NAAQS. See generally 42 U.S.C. 7511c. 

48See Attachment 2 to Area Designations for the 

2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. Memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, US EPA 

to Regional Administrators. December 4, 2008. 

Available at https://archive.epa.gov/ozone

designations/web/pdf/area_designations_for_the_

2008_revised_ozone_naaqs.pdf. 

Step 4: For upwind states that are 

found to have emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, 

implement the necessary emissions 

reductions within the state. In the 

CSAPR Update, the EPA implemented 

the necessary emissions reductions from 

upwind states found to have good 

neighbor obligations by requiring EGUs 

in those states to participate in the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program, which is very similar 

to the allowance trading programs used 

to implement the emissions reductions 

quantified in the original CSAPR and 

other earlier rules.45

Because this action is evaluating 

outstanding obligations that remain 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the EPA believes it is reasonable to 

apply the same framework used in the 

CSAPR Update in this proposed action. 

Within this four-step interstate 

transport framework, the EPA only 

proceeds to step four, in which it 

requires sources in upwind states to 

implement enforceable emissions 

limitations, if: (1) Downwind air quality 

problems are identified in at step 1; (2) 

an upwind state is linked to a 

downwind air quality problem at step 2; 

and (3) sources in the linked upwind 

state are identified as having emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS considering 

cost- and air-quality-based factors. For 

the reasons described in the following 

paragraphs, the EPA believes this 

approach is a reasonable interpretation 

of the good neighbor provision. 

The good neighbor provision instructs 

the EPA and states to apply its 

requirements ‘‘consistent with the 

provisions of’’ title I of the CAA. The 

EPA is therefore interpreting the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision, and the elements of its fourstep interstate transport framework, to 

apply in a manner consistent with the 

designation and planning requirements 

in title I that apply in downwind states. 

See North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 912 

(holding that the good neighbor 

provision’s reference to title I requires 

consideration of both procedural and 

substantive provisions in title I). The 

EPA notes that this consistency 

instruction follows the requirement that 

plans ‘‘contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting’’ certain emissions in the 

good neighbor provision. The following 

paragraphs will therefore explain how 

the EPA’s interpretation of the 

circumstances under which the good 

neighbor provision requires that plans 

‘‘prohibit’’ emissions through 

enforceable measures is consistent with 

the circumstances under which 

downwind states are required to 

implement emissions control measures 

in nonattainment areas. 

For purposes of this analysis, the EPA 

notes specific aspects of the title I 

designations process and attainment 

planning requirements for the ozone 

NAAQS that provide particularly 

relevant context for evaluating the 

consistency of the EPA’s approach to 

the good neighbor provision in upwind 

states. The EPA notes that this 

discussion is not intended to suggest 

that the specific requirements of 

designations and attainment planning 

apply to upwind states pursuant to the 

good neighbor provision, but rather to 

explain why the EPA’s approach to 

interpreting the good neighbor approach 

is reasonable in light of relevant, 

comparable provisions found elsewhere 

in title I. In particular, these provisions 

demonstrate that the EPA’s approach is 

consistent with other relevant 

provisions of title I with respect to what 

data is considered in the EPA’s analysis 

and when states are required to 

implement enforceable measures. 

First, areas are initially designated 

attainment or nonattainment for the 

ozone NAAQS based on actual 

measured ozone concentrations. CAA 

section 107(d) (noting that an area shall 

be designated attainment where it 

‘‘meets’’ the NAAQS and nonattainment 

where it ‘‘does not meet’’ the NAAQS). 

Therefore, a designation of 

nonattainment does not in the first 

instance depend on what specific 

factors have influenced the measured 

ozone concentrations or whether such 

levels are due to enforceable emissions 

limits. If an area measures a violation of 

the relevant ozone NAAQS, then the 

area is designated nonattainment. In 

cases where the ozone nonattainment 

area is classified as Moderate or higher, 

the responsible state is required to 

develop an attainment plan, which 

generally includes the application of 

various enforceable control measures to 

sources of emissions located in the 

nonattainment area, consistent with the 

requirements in Part D of title I of the 

Act.46 See generally CAA section 182, 42 

U.S.C. 7511a. If, however, an area 

measures compliance with the ozone 

NAAQS, the area is designated 

attainment, and sources in that area 

generally are not subject to any new 

enforceable control measures under 

Part D.47

Similarly, in determining the 

boundaries of an ozone nonattainment 

area, the CAA requires the EPA to 

consider whether ‘‘nearby’’ areas 

‘‘contribute’’ to ambient air quality in 

the area that does not meet the NAAQS. 

42 U.S.C. 7407(d). For each monitor or 

group of monitors indicating a violation 

of the ozone NAAQS, the EPA assesses 

information related to five factors, 

including current emissions and 

emissions-related data from the areas 

near the monitor(s), for the purpose of 

establishing the appropriate geographic 

boundaries for the designated ozone 

nonattainment areas. A nearby area may 

be included within the boundary of the 

ozone nonattainment area only after 

assessing area-specific information, 

including an assessment of whether 

current emissions from that area 

contribute to the air quality problem 

identified at the violating monitor.48 If 

such a determination is made, sources 

in the nearby area are also subject to the 

applicable Part D control requirements. 

However, if the EPA determines that the 

nearby area does not contribute to the 

measured nonattainment problem, then 

the nearby area is not part of the 

designated nonattainment area and 

sources in that area are not subject to 

such nonattainment control 

requirements. 

The EPA’s historical approach to 

addressing the good neighbor provision 

via the four-step interstate transport 

framework, and the approach the EPA 

proposes to continue to apply here, is 

consistent with these title I 

requirements. That is, in steps 1 and 2 

of the framework, the EPA evaluates 

whether there is a downwind air quality 

problem (either nonattainment or 

maintenance), and whether an upwind 

state impacts the downwind area such 

that it contributes to and is therefore 

‘‘linked’’ to the downwind area. The 

EPA’s determination at step 1 of the 

good neighbor analysis that it has not 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31925 

49The EPA also notes that the consideration of 

projected actual emissions in the future analytic 

year—as opposed to allowable levels—is also 

consistent with the statute’s instruction that states 

(or EPA in the states’ stead) prohibit emissions that 

‘‘will’’ impermissibly impact downwind air quality. 

This term is reasonably interpreted to mean that the 

EPA should evaluate anticipated emissions (what 

sources will emit) rather than potential emissions 

(what sources could emit). 

identified any downwind air quality 

problems to which an upwind state 

could contribute is analogous to the 

EPA’s determination in the designation 

analysis that an area should be 

designated attainment. Similarly, EPA’s 

determination at step 2 of the good 

neighbor analysis that, while it has at 

step 1 identified downwind air quality 

problems, an upwind state does not 

sufficiently impact the downwind area 

such that the state is ‘‘linked,’’ is 

analogous to the EPA’s determination in 

the designation analysis that a nearby 

area does not contribute to a NAAQS 

violation in another area. Thus, under 

the good neighbor provision, the EPA 

determines at step 1 or 2, as appropriate, 

that the upwind state will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in the downwind area. 

See, e.g., 81 FR 74506 (determining that 

emissions from 14 states do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS); 76 FR 48236 (finding that 

states whose contributions to downwind 

receptors are below the air quality 

threshold do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the relevant NAAQS). 

Under such circumstances, sources in 

the upwind state are not obligated to 

implement any control measures under 

the good neighbor provision, which is 

consistent with the fact that sources 

located in attainment areas generally are 

not required to implement the control 

measures found in Part D of the Act. Cf. 

EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 130 

(determining that CSAPR ozone-season 

NOX budgets for 10 states were invalid 

based on determination that modeling 

showed no future air quality problems); 

81 FR 74523–24 (removing three states 

from CSAPR ozone season NOX program 

based on determination that states are 

not linked to any remaining air quality 

problems for the 1997 ozone NAAQS). 

The EPA acknowledges one 

distinction between the good neighbor 

and designation analyses: The good 

neighbor analysis relies on future-year 

projections of emissions to calculate 

ozone concentrations and upwind state 

contributions, compared to the 

designation analysis’s use of current 

measured data. As described in more 

detail later, this approach is a 

reasonable interpretation of the term 

‘‘will’’ in the good neighbor provision, 

see North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913–14, 

and interpreting language specific to 

that provision does not create an 

impermissible inconsistency with other 

provisions of title I. Moreover, the EPA’s 

use of future-year modeling in the good 

neighbor analysis to identify downwind 

air quality problems and linked states is 

consistent with its use of current 

measured data in the designations 

process. The EPA’s future-year air 

quality projections consider a variety of 

factors, including current emissions 

data, anticipated future control 

measures, economic market influences, 

and meteorology. Many of these same 

factors, e.g., current control measures, 

economic market influences, and 

meteorology, can affect the NOX

emissions levels and consequent 

measured ozone concentrations that 

inform the designations process. Like 

the factors that affect measured ozone 

concentrations used in the designations 

process, not all of the factors 

influencing the EPA’s modeling 

projections are or can be enforceable 

limitations on emissions or ozone 

concentrations. However, the EPA 

believes that consideration of these 

factors contributes to a reasonable 

estimate of anticipated future ozone 

concentrations. See EME Homer City II, 

795 F.3d at 135 (declining to invalidate 

EPA’s modeling projections ‘‘solely 

because there might be discrepancies 

between those predictions and the real 

world’’); Chemical Manufacturers 

Association v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1264 

(DC Cir. 1994) (‘‘a model is meant to 

simplify reality in order to make it 

tractable’’). Thus, the EPA believes that 

consideration of these factors in its 

future-year modeling projections used at 

steps 1 and 2 of the good neighbor 

analysis is reasonable and consistent 

with the use of measured data in the 

designation analysis.49

The EPA notes that there is a further 

distinction between the section 107(d) 

designations provision and the good 

neighbor provision in that the latter 

provision uses different terms to 

describe the threshold for determining 

whether emissions in an upwind state 

should be regulated (‘‘contribute 

significantly’’) as compared to the 

standard for evaluating the impact of 

nearby areas in the designations process 

(‘‘contribute’’). Thus, at step 3 of the 

good neighbor analysis the EPA 

evaluates additional factors, including 

cost and air-quality considerations, to 

determine whether emissions from a 

linked upwind state do or would violate 

the good neighbor provision. Only if the 

EPA at step 3 determines that the 

upwind state’s emissions do or would 

violate the good neighbor provision will 

it proceed to step 4, at which point 

emissions in the upwind state must be 

controlled so as to address the identified 

violation, analogous to the trigger for the 

application of Part D requirements to 

sources located in designated 

nonattainment areas. The EPA interprets 

the good neighbor provision to not 

require it or the upwind state to proceed 

to step 4 and implement any enforceable 

measures to ‘‘prohibit’’ emissions unless 

it identifies a violation of the provision 

at step 3. See, e.g., 76 FR 48262 (finding 

at step 3 that the District of Columbia is 

not violating the good neighbor 

provision, and therefore will not at step 

4 be subject to any control requirements 

in CSAPR, because no cost-effective 

emissions reductions were identified). 

B. Selection of a Future Analytic Year 

In this action, consistent with 

historical practice, the EPA focuses its 

analysis on a future year in light of the 

forward-looking nature of the good 

neighbor obligation in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Specifically, the 

statute requires that states prohibit 

emissions that ‘‘will’’ significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in any 

other state. The EPA reasonably 

interprets this language as permitting 

states and the EPA in implementing the 

good neighbor provision to 

prospectively evaluate downwind air 

quality problems and the need for 

further upwind emissions reductions. In 

the EPA’s prior regional transport 

rulemakings, the Agency generally 

evaluated whether upwind states ‘‘will’’ 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance based on projections of air 

quality in the future year in which any 

emissions reductions would be expected 

to go into effect. Thus, when the EPA 

finalized the NOX SIP Call in 1998, it 

used the anticipated 2007 full 

compliance year for its analysis, and 

when the EPA finalized CAIR in 2005, 

it used the years 2009 and 2010, 

anticipated compliance years for the 

1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

respectively. 63 FR 57377; 70 FR 25241. 

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the EPA’s 

interpretation of ‘‘will’’ in CAIR, finding 

the EPA’s consideration of future 

projected air quality (in addition to 

current measured data) to be a 

reasonable interpretation of an 

ambiguous term. North Carolina, 531 

F.3d at 913–14. The EPA applied the 

same approach in finalizing CSAPR in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31926 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

50While there are no areas (outside of California) 

that are currently designated as Serious or Severe 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the CAA requires that 

the EPA reclassify to Serious any Moderate 

nonattainment areas that fail to attain by their 

attainment date of July 20, 2018. Similarly, if any 

area fails to attain by the Serious area attainment 

date, the CAA requires that the EPA reclassify the 

area to Severe. 

51See CAA section 181(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

7511(a)(1). 52Annual Energy Outlook 2018. Electricity 

Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions. 

Reference Case. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Available at https://

www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=8- 

AEO2018&cases=ref2018&sourcekey=0. 53EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. at 1600–01; EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 

127. 54 81 FR 74538. 

2011 and the CSAPR Update in 2016 by 

evaluating air quality in 2012 and 2017, 

respectively. 76 FR 48211; 81 FR 74537. 

Thus, consistent with this precedent, a 

key decision that informs the 

application of the interstate transport 

framework is selecting a future analytic 

year. In determining the appropriate 

future analytic year for purposes of 

assessing remaining interstate transport 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the EPA considered two primary factors: 

(1) The applicable attainment dates; and 

(2) the timing to feasibly implement 

new NOX control strategies, which are 

discussed in the following two sections. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

these factors collectively support the 

use of 2023 as the future analytic year 

for this proposed action. 

1. Attainment Dates for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

First, the EPA considers the 

downwind attainment dates for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. In North Carolina, the 

D.C. Circuit held that emissions 

reductions required by the good 

neighbor provision should be evaluated 

considering the relevant attainment 

dates of downwind nonattainment areas 

impacted by interstate transport. 531 

F.3d at 911–12 (holding that the EPA 

must consider downwind attainment 

dates when establishing interstate 

transport compliance deadlines). Many 

areas currently have attainment dates of 

July 20, 2018 for areas classified as 

Moderate, but, as noted earlier, the 2017 

ozone season was the last full season 

from which data could be used to 

determine attainment of the NAAQS by 

the July 20, 2018 attainment date. Given 

that the 2017 ozone season has now 

passed, it is not possible to achieve 

additional emissions reductions by the 

Moderate area attainment date. It is 

therefore necessary to consider what 

subsequent attainment dates should 

inform the EPA’s analysis. The next 

attainment dates for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS will be July 20, 2021, for 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious, and July 20, 2027, for 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Severe.50 Because the various 

attainment deadlines are in July, which 

is in the middle of the ozone monitoring 

season for all states, data from the 

calendar year prior to the attainment 

date (e.g., data from 2020 for the 2021 

attainment date and from 2026 for the 

2027 attainment date) are the last data 

that can be used to demonstrate 

attainment with the NAAQS by the 

relevant attainment date. Therefore, the 

EPA considers the control strategies that 

could be implemented by 2020 and 

2026 in assessing the 2021 and 2027 

attainment dates in its subsequent 

analysis. The EPA has also considered 

that, in all cases, the statute provides 

that areas should attain as expeditiously 

as practicable.51

2. Feasibility of Control Strategies To 

Reduce Ozone Season NOX

Second, the EPA considers the 

timeframes that may be required to 

implement further emissions reductions 

as expeditiously as practicable. 

Generally, NOX emissions levels are 

expected to decline in the future 

through the combination of the 

implementation of existing local, state, 

and federal emissions reduction 

programs and changing market 

conditions for generation technologies 

and fuels.52 This is an important 

consideration because the U.S. Supreme 

Court and the D.C. Circuit Court have 

both held that the EPA may not overcontrol: It may not require emissions 

reductions (at step 3 of the good 

neighbor framework) from a state that 

are greater than necessary to achieve 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all of the downwind areas to 

which that state is linked.53 In 

particular, in EME Homer City II, the 

D.C. Circuit determined that the CSAPR 

phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 

ten states were invalid because EPA’s 

modeling showed that the downwind 

air quality problems to which these 

states were linked would be resolved by 

2014, when the phase 2 budgets were 

scheduled to be implemented. 795 F.3d 

at 129–30. Therefore, because new 

controls cannot be implemented feasibly 

for several years, and at that later point 

in time air quality will likely be better 

due to continued phase-in of existing 

regulatory programs, changing market 

conditions, and fleet turnover, it is 

reasonable for the EPA to evaluate air 

quality (at step 1 of the good neighbor 

framework) in a future year that is 

aligned with feasible control installation 

timing in order to ensure that the 

upwind states continue (at step 2) to be 

linked to downwind air quality 

problems when any potential emissions 

reductions (identified at step 3) would 

be implemented (at step 4) and to 

ensure that such reductions do not overcontrol relative to the identified ozone 

problem. 

The EPA’s analysis of the feasibility of 

NOX control strategies reflects the time 

needed to plan for, install, test, and 

place into operation new EGU and nonEGU NOX reduction strategies 

regionally—i.e., across multiple states. 

This regional analytic approach is 

consistent with the regional nature of 

interstate ozone pollution transport as 

described in section II.A. The Agency 

adopted this approach for this proposal 

based on previous interstate ozone 

transport analyses showing that where 

eastern downwind ozone problems are 

identified, multiple upwind states 

typically are linked to these problems.54

Specifically of relevance to this action, 

as discussed in section II.C, the EPA’s 

assessment of CSAPR Update 

implementation found that 21 states 

continued to contribute greater than or 

equal to 1% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

to identified downwind nonattainment 

or maintenance receptors in multiple 

downwind states in 2017. Thus, to 

reasonably address these ozone 

transport problems, the EPA must 

identify and apportion emissions 

reduction responsibility across multiple 

upwind states. In other words, the 

EPA’s analysis should necessarily be 

regional, rather than focused on 

individual linkages. Where such an 

analysis is needed for multiple states, 

the inquiry into the availability and 

feasibility of control options is 

necessarily considerably more 

complicated than for a single state or 

sector. 

Further, the feasibility of new 

emissions controls should be considered 

with regard to multiple upwind source 

categories to ensure that the Agency 

properly evaluates NOX reduction 

potential and cost-effectiveness from all 

reasonable control measures (including 

those that are or may be available 

outside of the EGU sector). NOX

emissions come from multiple 

anthropogenic source categories, such as 

mobile sources, electric utilities, 

resource extraction industries, and 

industrial and commercial facilities. As 

noted in section II.A, the EPA has 

historically addressed mobile source 

emissions through national 

rulemakings. Moreover, mobile source 

emissions are already decreasing 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31927 

55See Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission 

Controls, Cost of Controls, and Time for 

Compliance Final TSD from the CSAPR Update in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

56The CSAPR Update was signed on September 

7, 2016—approximately 8 months before the 

beginning of the 2017 ozone season on May 1. 

57https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ (Data current as of 

March 1, 2018). 

58 Id. 

59See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final Rule 

TSD (docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500–0554, 

available at www.regulations.gov and https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/ 

documents/egu_nox_mitigation_strategies_final_

rule_tsd.pdf) (NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD). 

because of sector-specific standards 

related to fuels, vehicle fuel economy, 

pollution controls, and repair and 

replacement of the existing fleet. 

Programs such as the Tier 3 vehicle 

emissions standards are already being 

phased in between now and 2023. That 

rule was finalized in 2014 with a phasein schedule of 2017–2025 reflecting fleet 

turnover. Thus, another reason that in 

this proposed action the EPA has 

focused on stationary sources is that 

emissions reductions from those sources 

could likely be implemented more 

quickly than would result from any 

attempt to effect additional reductions 

from mobile sources beyond those 

described. 

Among stationary sources, EGUs in 

the eastern U.S. have been the primary 

subject of regulation to address 

interstate ozone pollution transport and 

have made significant financial 

investments to achieve emissions 

reductions. While the EPA continues to 

evaluate control feasibility for EGUs in 

its analysis, the EPA’s recent analyses 

indicate that non-EGU source categories, 

which the EPA has not made subject to 

new regulations to address interstate 

ozone transport since the NOX SIP Call, 

may also be well-positioned to costeffectively reduce NOX relative to 

EGUs.55 Accordingly, the EPA’s 

assessment of control feasibility focuses 

on both EGU and non-EGU sources. 

a. EGUs 

First, the EPA presents its feasibility 

assessment of NOX control strategies for 

EGUs. In establishing the CSAPR 

Update EGU ozone season NOX

emissions budgets, the Agency 

quantified the emissions reductions 

achievable from all NOX control 

strategies that were feasible to 

implement in less than one year and 

cost-effective at a marginal cost of 

$1,400 per ton of NOX removed.56 These 

EGU NOX control strategies were: 

optimizing NOX removal by existing, 

operational selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) controls; turning on and 

optimizing existing idled SCR controls; 

installing state-of-the-art NOX

combustion controls; and shifting 

generation to existing units with lowerNOX emissions rates within the same 

state. 81 FR 74541. The Agency believes 

that the resulting CSAPR Update 

emissions budgets are being 

appropriately implemented under the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowance trading program. Preliminary 

data for the 2017 ozone season (the first 

CSAPR Update compliance period) 

indicate that power plant ozone season 

NOX emissions across the 22 state 

CSAPR Update region were reduced by 

77,420 tons (or 21%) from 2016 to 

2017.57 As a result, total 2017 ozone 

season NOX emissions from covered 

EGUs across the 22 CSAPR Update 

states were approximately 294,478 

tons,58 well below the sum of states’ 

emissions budgets established in the 

CSAPR Update of 316,464 tons. 

Accordingly, for the purposes of this 

proposed determination, the EPA 

considers the turning on and optimizing 

of existing SCR controls and the 

installation of combustion controls to be 

NOX control strategies that have already 

been appropriately evaluated and 

implemented in the final CSAPR 

Update. 

In the CSAPR Update, the EPA also 

identified one EGU NOX control strategy 

that was considered feasible to 

implement within one year but was not 

cost-effective at a marginal cost of 

$1,400 per ton of NOX removed: 

specifically, turning on existing idled 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) 

controls. In the CSAPR Update, the EPA 

identified a marginal cost of $3,400 per 

ton as the level of uniform control 

stringency that represents turning on 

and fully operating idled SNCR 

controls.59 However, the CSAPR Update 

finalized emissions budgets using 

$1,400 per ton control stringency, 

finding that this level of stringency 

represented the control level at which 

incremental EGU NOX reductions and 

corresponding downwind ozone air 

quality improvements were maximized 

with respect to marginal cost. In finding 

that use of the $1,400 control cost level 

was appropriate, the EPA established 

that the more stringent emissions budget 

level reflecting $3,400 per ton 

(representing turning on idled SNCR 

controls) yielded fewer additional 

emissions reductions and fewer air 

quality improvements relative to the 

increase in control costs. In other words, 

based on the CSAPR Update analysis, 

establishing emissions budgets at $3,400 

per ton, and therefore developing 

budgets based on operation of idled 

SNCR controls, was not determined to 

be cost-effective for addressing good 

neighbor provision obligations for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74550. The 

EPA believes that the strategy of turning 

on and fully operating idled SNCR 

controls was appropriately evaluated in 

the CSAPR Update with respect to 

addressing interstate ozone pollution 

transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Accordingly, in this proposal the EPA is 

not further assessing this control 

strategy for purposes of identifying an 

appropriate future analytic year. 

As mentioned previously, the EPA 

evaluated shifting generation from EGUs 

with higher NOX-emissions rates to 

EGUs with lower NOX-emissions rates 

as a means of reducing emissions in the 

context of the CSAPR Update. Shifting 

generation is a NOX control strategy that 

occurs on a time- and cost-continuum, 

in contrast to the relatively discrete 

price-points and installation timeframes 

that can be identified for combustion 

and post-combustion controls. 

Therefore, in the CSAPR Update, the 

EPA identified the discrete cost 

thresholds used to evaluate upwind 

states’ good neighbor obligations based 

on its evaluation of combustion and 

post-combustion controls, and 

secondarily examined the amount of 

generation shifting that would result at 

the same cost threshold associated with 

the particular control technology. 

Quantifying NOX reductions from 

shifting generation anticipated at the 

same cost thresholds relative to the 

control technologies being considered 

(e.g., restarting idled SCR controls) 

helped ensure that the emissions 

reductions associated with the control 

strategies could be expected to occur. In 

other words, had the agency excluded 

consideration of generation shifting in 

calculating emissions budgets, 

generation shifting would have 

nonetheless occurred as a compliance 

strategy, but the consequence would 

have been a smaller amount of 

emissions reduction than what the 

agency knew to be achievable and 

cost-effective at the selected cost 

threshold. Thus, although potential 

emissions reductions resulting from 

generation shifting were factored into 

the final budgets, this compliance 

strategy did not drive the EPA’s 

identification of cost thresholds 

analyzed in the rule. 

For the same reasons, the EPA does 

not find it appropriate to evaluate 

generation shifting, in isolation from 

viable combustion or post-combustion 

control assessments, for purposes of 

selecting a future analytic year. If the 

EPA were to choose an earlier analytic 

year based on the ability of upwind 

sources to implement some level of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31928 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

60Because the EPA is not in this proposal 

evaluating additional generation shifting 

possibilities, it does not at this time need to revisit 

the question whether it is within the EPA’s 

authority or otherwise proper to consider 

generation shifting in implementing the good 

neighbor provision. The EPA is aware that this has 

been an issue of contention in the past, and 

stakeholders have raised serious concerns regarding 

this issue. See, e.g., 81 FR at 74545 (responding to 

comments); CSAPR Update Rule—Response to 

Comment, at 534–50 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500– 

0572) (summarizing and responding to comments). 

The EPA may revisit this question in addressing 

good neighbor requirements for other NAAQS but 

is not soliciting comment at this time on this issue 

with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

61National Electric Energy Data System v6 

(NEEDS). EPA. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/national-electric-energy-data-systemneeds-v6. 

62Final Report: Engineering and Economic 

Factors Affecting the Installation of Control 

Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, EPA– 

600/R–02/073 (Oct. 2002), available at https://

nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001G0O.pdf. 

63NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. 

64Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting 

the Installation of Control Technologies for 

Multipollutant Strategies. EPA Final Report. Table 

3–1. Available at https://archive.epa.gov/clearskies/ 

web/pdf/multi102902.pdf. 

generation shifting within that 

timeframe, before other specific control 

technologies could be implemented, this 

would have the consequence of limiting 

the EPA’s analysis and the amount of 

emissions reductions that would be 

considered cost-effective and therefore 

subject to regulation under the good 

neighbor provision, relative to a more 

robust analysis that considers other 

emissions controls available within 

defined timeframes. Further, due to 

continued lower cost natural gas prices 

and price projections, significant 

shifting from higher emitting coal 

sources to lower emitting gas sources 

(relative to historical generation levels) 

is occurring and expected to continue to 

occur by 2023 due to market drivers. 

Thus, there may be limited opportunity 

for the sources to implement further 

emissions reductions through 

generation shifting over the next 5 years. 

Given the indeterminate 

implementation timeframes for 

generation shifting and the EPA’s 

historical consideration of this strategy 

as a secondary factor in quantifying 

emissions budgets, the EPA believes the 

most reasonable approach for selecting 

a future analytic year is to focus on the 

timeframe in which specific control 

technologies other than generation 

shifting can be implemented.60

For these reasons, for purposes of 

identifying an appropriate future 

analytic year, the EPA is focusing its 

assessment of EGUs in this action on 

controls that were deemed to be 

infeasible to install for the 2017 ozone 

season rather than reassessing controls 

previously analyzed for cost-effective 

emissions reductions in the CSAPR 

Update. In establishing the CSAPR 

Update emissions budgets, the EPA 

identified but did not analyze the 

following two EGU NOX control 

strategies in establishing the CSAPR 

Update emissions budgets because 

implementation by 2017 was not 

considered feasible: (1) Installing new 

SCR controls; and (2) installing new 

SNCR controls. In the CSAPR Update, 

EPA observed that EGU SCR postcombustion controls can achieve up to 

90 percent reduction in EGU NOX

emissions. In 2017, these controls were 

in widespread use by EGUs in the east. 

EPA also observed that SNCR controls 

can be effective at reducing NOX

emissions and can achieve up to a 25 

percent emissions reduction from EGUs 

(with sufficient reagent). In 2017, these 

controls were also used across the 

power sector. In the 22-state CSAPR 

Update region, approximately 62 

percent of coal-fired EGU capacity is 

equipped with SCR controls and 12 

percent is equipped with SNCR 

controls.61

Installing new SCR or SNCR controls 

for EGUs generally involves the 

following steps: conducting an 

engineering review of the facility; 

advertising and awarding a procurement 

contract; obtaining a construction 

permit; installing the control 

technology; testing the control 

technology; and obtaining or modifying 

an operating permit.62 Because 

installing these post-combustion 

controls—SCR or SNCR—involve the 

same steps and many of the same 

considerations, the timing of their 

feasible regional development is 

described together in the following 

paragraphs. However, the EPA notes 

differences between these control 

technologies with respect to the 

potential viability of achieving costeffective regional NOX reductions from 

EGUs. As described above, SCR controls 

generally achieve greater EGU NOX

reduction efficiency (up to 90%) than 

SNCR controls (up to 25%). Resulting in 

part from this disparity in NOX

reduction efficiency, when considering 

both control costs and NOX reduction 

potential in developing cost per ton 

analysis for the CSAPR Update, the EPA 

found new SCR controls to be more 

cost-effective at removing NOX. 

Specifically, the EPA found that new 

SCR controls could generally reduce 

EGU emissions for $5,000 per ton of 

NOX removed whereas new SNCR 

controls could generally reduce EGU 

emissions at a higher cost of $6,400 per 

ton of NOX removed.63 In other words, 

the greater NOX reduction efficiency for 

SCR controls translates into greater costeffectiveness relative to SNCR controls. 

The general cost-effectiveness advantage 

is consistent with observed installation 

patterns where SCR controls (62% of 

coal-fired capacity) are more prevalent 

across the east relative to SNCR (12% of 

coal-fired capacity). 

For SCR, the total time associated 

with navigating necessary steps is 

estimated to be up to 39 months for an 

individual power plant installing SCR 

on more than one boiler.64 However, 

more time is needed when considering 

installation timing for new SCR controls 

across the Eastern EGU fleet addressed 

in this action. As described in the 

subsequent paragraphs, EPA determined 

that a minimum of 48 months is a 

reasonable time period to allow for the 

coordination of outages, shepherding of 

labor and material supply, and 

identification of retrofit projects. This 

timeframe would facilitate multiple 

power plants with multiple boilers to 

conduct all stages of post-combustion 

and combustion control project 

planning, installation, and operation. 

Scheduled curtailment, or planned 

outage, for pollution control installation 

would be necessary to complete either 

SCR or SNCR projects. Given that peak 

demand and rule compliance would 

both fall in the ozone season, sources 

would likely try to schedule installation 

projects for the ‘‘shoulder’’ seasons (i.e., 

the spring and/or fall seasons), when 

electricity demand is lower than in the 

summer, reserves are higher, and ozone 

season compliance requirements are not 

in effect. If multiple units were under 

the same timeline to complete the 

retrofit projects as soon as feasible from 

an engineering perspective, this could 

lead to bottlenecks of scheduled outages 

as each unit attempts to start and finish 

its installation in roughly the same 

compressed time period. Thus, any 

compliance timeframe that would 

assume installation of new SCR or 

SNCR controls should encompass 

multiple shoulder seasons to 

accommodate scheduling of curtailment 

for control installation purposes and 

better accommodate the regional nature 

of the program. 

In addition to the coordination of 

scheduled curtailment, an appropriate 

compliance timeframe should 

accommodate the additional 

coordination of labor and material 

supply necessary for any fleet-wide 

mitigation efforts. The total construction 

labor for a SCR system associated with 

a 500-megawatt (MW) EGU is in the 

range of 300,000 to 500,000 man-hours, 

with boilermakers accounting for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31929 

65 Id. 

66Occupational Outlook Handbook. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. Available at https://www.bls.gov/ 

ooh/construction-and-extraction/boilermakers.htm. 

67Union Craft Labor Supply Survey. The 

Association of Union Constructors. Exhibit 4–2 at 

page 29. Available at https://www.tauc.org/files/ 

2017_TAUC_UNION_CRAFT_LABOR_SUPPLY_

REVISEDBC_FINAL.pdf. 

68Skilled Wage Growth Less Robust, Worker 

Shortage Still an Issue. Industry Week. October 23, 

2017. Available at http://www.industryweek.com/ 

talent/skilled-wage-growth-less-robust-workershortage-still-issue. 

69Union Craft Labor Supply Survey. The 

Association of Union Constructors. Exhibit 4–2 at 

page 29. Available at https://www.tauc.org/files/ 

2017_TAUC_UNION_CRAFT_LABOR_SUPPLY_

REVISEDBC_FINAL.pdf. 70Worldsteel Short Range Outlook. October 16, 

2017. Available at https://www.worldsteel.org/ 

media-centre/press-releases/2017/worldsteel-ShortRange-Outlook-2017-2018.html. 71See, e.g., Seattle Has Most Cranes in the 

Country for 2nd Year in a Row—and Lead is 

Growing. Seattle Times. July 11, 2017. Available at 

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/ 

seattle-has-most-cranes-in-the-country-for-2ndyear-in-a-row-and-lead-is-growing/. 

72See RLB Crane Index, January 2018 in the 

docket for this action. 

73 2014 EIA Form 860. Schedule 6. Environmental 

Control Equipment. 

74 2013 EIA Form 860, Schedule 6, Environmental 

Control Equipment. 

75Big Bend’s Multi-Unit SCR Retrofit. Power 

Magazine. March 1, 2010. Available at http://

www.powermag.com/big-bends-multi-unit-scrretrofit/. 

approximately half of this time.65 SNCR 

installations, while generally having 

shorter individual project timeframes of 

10 to 13 months from bid solicitation to 

startup, share similar labor and material 

resources and the timing of SNCR 

installation planning is therefore linked 

to the timing of SCR installation 

planning. In recent industry surveys, 

one of the largest shortages of union 

craft workers was for boilermakers. This 

shortage of skilled boilermakers is 

expected to rise due to an anticipated 

nine percent increase in boilermaker 

labor demand growth by 2026, coupled 

with expected retirements and 

comparatively low numbers of 

apprentices joining the workforce.66 The 

shortage of and demand for skilled 

labor, including other craft workers 

critical to pollution control installation, 

is pronounced in the manufacturing 

industry. The Association of Union 

Constructors conducted a survey of 

identified labor shortages and found 

that boilermakers were the second-most 

frequently reported skilled labor market 

with a labor shortage.67 Moreover, 

recovery efforts from the natural 

disasters of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma 

and wildfires in 2017 are expected to 

further tighten the labor supply market 

in manufacturing in the near term.68

The EPA determined that these tight 

labor market conditions within the 

relevant manufacturing sectors, 

combined with fleet-level mitigation 

initiatives, would likely lead to some 

sequencing and staging of labor pool 

usage, rather than simultaneous 

construction across all efforts. This 

sector-wide trend supports SCR and 

SNCR installation timeframes for a fleetwide program that exceeds the 

demonstrated single-unit installation 

timeframe. 

In addition to labor supply, NOX postcombustion control projects also require 

materials and equipment such as steel 

and cranes. Sheet metal workers, 

necessary for steel production, are also 

reported as having well above an 

average supply-side shortage of labor.69

This, coupled with growth in steel 

demand estimated at three percent in 

2018 suggests that there may be a 

constricted supply of steel needed for 

installation of new post-combustion 

controls.70 Similarly, cranes are critical 

for installation of SCRs, components of 

which must be lifted hundreds of feet in 

the air during construction. Cranes are 

also facing higher demand during this 

period of economic growth, with 

companies reporting a shortage in both 

equipment and manpower.71 72 The 

tightening markets in relevant skilled 

labor, materials, and equipment, 

combined with the large number of 

installations that could be required 

fleet-wide under a regional air pollution 

transport program, necessitates longer 

installation time-tables relative to what 

has been historically demonstrated at 

the unit-level. 

The time lag observed between the 

planning phase and in-service date of 

SCR operations in certain cases also 

illustrates that site-specific conditions 

sometimes lead to installation times of 

four years or longer. For instance, SCR 

projects for units at the Ottumwa power 

plant (Iowa), Columbia power plant 

(Wisconsin), and Oakley power plant 

(California) were all in the planning 

phase in 2014. By 2016, these projects 

were under construction with estimated 

in-service dates of 2018.73 Similarly, 

individual SNCR projects can exceed 

their estimated 10 through 13-month 

construction time frame. For example, 

projects such as SNCR installation at the 

Jeffrey power plant (Kansas) were in the 

planning phase in 2013, but not in 

service until 2015.74 Completed 

projects, when large in scale, also 

illustrate how timelines can extend 

beyond the bare minimum necessary for 

a single unit when the project is part of 

a larger air quality initiative involving 

more than one unit at a plant. For 

instance, the Big Bend Power Station in 

Florida completed a multi-faceted 

project that involved adding SCRs to all 

four units as well as converting 

furnaces, over-fire air changes, and 

making windbox modifications. The 

time from the initial planning stages to 

completion was a decade.75

While individual unit-level SCR and 

SNCR projects can average 39 and 10 

months, respectively, from bid to 

startup, a comprehensive and regional 

emissions reduction effort also requires 

more time to accommodate the labor, 

materials, and outage coordination for 

these two types of control strategies. 

Because these post-combustion control 

strategies share similar resource inputs 

and are part of regional emissions 

reduction programs rather than unitspecific technology mandates, the 

timeframes for one type are inherently 

linked to the other type. This means that 

SNCR projects cannot be put on an early 

schedule in light of their reduced 

construction timing without impacting 

the availability of resources for the 

manufacture and installation of SCRs 

and thus the potential start dates of 

those projects. 

In short, given the market and 

regulatory circumstances in which EPA 

evaluated this effort, our analysis shows 

that four years would be an expeditious 

timeframe to coordinate the planning 

and completion of any mitigation efforts 

necessary in this instance. 

b. Non-EGU Control Technologies 

The EPA is also evaluating the 

feasibility of implementing NOX control 

technologies for non-EGUs in its 

assessment of an appropriate future 

analytic year. While the EPA did not 

regulate non-EGUs in the CSAPR 

Update, the rule did evaluate the 

feasibility of NOX controls on non-EGUs 

in the eastern United States to assess 

whether any such controls could be 

implemented in time for the 2017 ozone 

season. The EPA noted that there was 

greater uncertainty in the assessment of 

non-EGU point-source NOX mitigation 

potential as compared to EGUs, and 

therefore explained that more time was 

required for states and the EPA to 

improve non-EGU point source data, 

including data on existing control 

efficiencies, additional applicable 

pollution control technologies, and 

installation times for those control 

technologies. 81 FR 74542. A significant 

factor influencing uncertainty was that 

the EPA lacked sufficient information 

on the capacity and experience of 

suppliers and major engineering firms’ 

supply chains to determine if they 

would be able to install the required 

pollution controls for non-EGU sources 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31930 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

76 Institute of Clean Air Companies. Typical 

Installation Timelines for NOX Emissions Control 

Technologies on Industrial Sources, December 

2006. Available at https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ 

icac.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/ICAC_NOx_

Control_Installatio.pdf. 

77US EPA. Cement Kilns Technical Support 

Document for the NOX FIP. January 2001. Available 

at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0500-0094. 

78 INGAA Foundation. Availability and 

Limitations of NOX Emission Control Resources for 

Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engine Prime 

Movers Used in the Interstate Natural Gas 

Transmission Industry, Innovative Environmental 

Solutions Inc., July 2014. Available at http://

www.ingaa.org/Foundation/Foundation-Reports/ 

NOX.aspx. 

79 In this document, we present different 

installation time estimates for SCRs for EGUs and 

non-EGUs. These installation times are not 

inconsistent because: (i) The EGU time estimate of 

39 months mentioned above is based on multiboiler installation and factors in a pre-vendor bid 

engineering study consideration; and (ii) the nonEGU SCR installation time estimates are based on 

single-unit installation and do not factor in prevendor bid evaluation. 

in time for the 2017 ozone season. 

Further, using the best information 

available to the EPA at that time, the 

EPA found that there were more nonEGU point sources than EGU sources 

and that these sources on average emit 

less NOX than EGUs. The implication 

was that there were more individual 

sources that could be controlled, but 

relatively fewer emissions reductions 

available from each source when 

compared to the number of EGUs and 

emissions reductions available from 

EGUs. Considering these factors, the 

EPA found that it was substantially 

uncertain whether significant aggregate 

NOX mitigation would be achievable 

from non-EGU point sources to address 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 2017 

ozone season. Id. 

Although the EPA determined that 

there were limited achievable emissions 

reductions available from non-EGUs by 

the 2017 ozone season, the EPA 

acknowledged that it may be 

appropriate to evaluate potential nonEGU emissions reductions achievable 

on a timeframe after the 2017 ozone 

season to assess upwind states’ full good 

neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 81 FR 74522. In particular, the 

EPA’s preliminary assessment indicated 

that there may be emissions reductions 

achievable from non-EGUs at marginal 

costs lower than the costs of remaining 

NOX control strategies available for 

EGUs. Accordingly, in assessing an 

appropriate future analytic year, the 

EPA is also considering the potential 

implementation timeframes for NOX

emissions reductions available for nonEGUs. In evaluating potential non-EGU 

emissions reductions in the CSAPR 

Update, the EPA included preliminary 

estimates of installation times for some 

non-EGU NOX control technologies in a 

technical support document entitled 

Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission 

Controls, Cost of Controls, and Time for 

Compliance Final Technical Support 

Document (henceforth, ‘‘Final Non-EGU 

TSD’’). These preliminary estimates 

were based on research from a variety of 

information sources, including: 

• Typical Installation Timelines for NOX

Emissions Control Technologies on Industrial 

Sources, Institute of Clean Air Companies, 

December 2006 (all sources except cement 

kilns and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE)); 76

• Cement Kilns Technical Support 

Document for the NOX FIP, US EPA, January 

2001; 77 and 

• Availability and Limitations of NOX

Emission Control Resources for Natural GasFired Reciprocating Engine Prime Movers 

Used in the Interstate Natural Gas 

Transmission Industry, Innovative 

Environmental Solutions Inc., July 2014 

(prepared for the INGAA Foundation).78

The EPA’s analysis in the Final NonEGU TSD focused on potential control 

technologies within the range of costs 

considered in the final CSAPR Update 

for EGUs, or those controls available at 

a marginal cost of $3,400 per ton (2011 

dollars) of NOX reduced or less. The 

EPA’s analysis did not evaluate 

implementation timeframes or potential 

emissions reductions available from 

controls at higher cost thresholds. See 

Final Non-EGU TSD at 18. This focus 

excluded some emissions source groups 

with emissions reduction potential at a 

marginal cost greater than $3,400 per 

ton, including: industrial/commercial/ 

institutional boilers using SCR and lowNOX burners (LNB); and catalytic 

cracking units, process heaters, and 

coke ovens using LNB and flue gas 

recirculation. However, while emissions 

reduction potential from these source 

groups is uncertain, the timeframe for 

these control technologies would be 

subject to similar considerations and 

limitations discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

Among the control technologies that 

were evaluated in the Final Non-EGU 

TSD, the EPA identified six categories of 

common control technologies available 

for different non-EGU emissions source 

categories. Id. at 19. For four of the 

technology categories (SNCR, SCR, LNB, 

and mid-kiln firing), the EPA 

preliminarily estimated that such 

controls for non-EGUs could be 

installed in approximately 1 year or less 

in some unit-specific cases. Installation 

time estimates presented in the Final 

Non-EGU TSD begin with control 

technology bid evaluation (bids from 

vendors) and end with the startup of the 

control technology.79 See Final NonEGU TSD at 20. For the other two 

technology categories (biosolid injection 

technology (BSI) and OXY-firing), as 

well as one emissions source category 

(RICE), the EPA had no installation time 

estimates or uncertain installation time 

estimates. For example, the EPA found 

that the use of BSI is not widespread, 

and therefore the EPA does not have 

reliable information regarding the time 

required to install the technology on 

cement kilns. The installation timing for 

OXY-firing is similarly uncertain 

because the control technology is 

installed only at the time of a furnace 

rebuild, and such rebuilds occur at 

infrequent intervals of a decade or more. 

For those categories for which 

preliminary estimates were available, as 

noted in the Final Non-EGU TSD, the 

single-unit installation time estimates 

provided do not account for additional 

important considerations in assessing 

the full amount of time needed for 

installation of NOX control measures at 

non-EGUs; those considerations include 

time, labor, and materials needed for 

programmatic adoption of measures and 

time required for installing controls on 

multiple sources in a few to several nonEGU sectors across the region. 

The preliminary estimates of 

installation time shown in the Final 

Non-EGU TSD are for installation at a 

single source and do not account for the 

time required for installing controls to 

achieve sector-wide compliance. When 

considering installation of control 

measures on sources regionally and 

across non-EGU sectors, the time for full 

sector-wide compliance is uncertain, 

but it is likely longer than the 

installation times shown for control 

measures as mentioned above for 

individual sources in the Final NonEGU TSD. As discussed earlier with 

respect to EGUs, regional, sector-wide 

compliance could be slowed down by 

limited vendor capacity, limited 

available skilled labor for manufacturers 

such as boilermakers (who produce steel 

fabrications, including those for 

pollution control equipment), 

availability of raw materials and 

equipment (e.g., cranes) for control 

technology construction, and 

bottlenecks in delivery and installation 

of control technologies. Some of the 

difficulties with control technology 

installation as part of regional, sectorwide compliance at non-EGUs, such as 

availability of skilled labor and 

materials, could also have an impact on 

monitor installation at such sources. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31931 

80 80 FR 39961 (finding that 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). 

81The EPA has deadlines to promulgate FIPs for 

Indiana (81 FR 38957), Ohio (81 FR 38957) and 

New Jersey (81 FR 38963) by July 15, 2018; for 

Maryland (81 FR 47040) by August 19, 2018; for 

Louisiana (81 FR 53308), Texas (81 FR 53284) and 

Wisconsin (81 FR 53309) by September 12, 2018; 

and for New York (81 FR 58849) by September 26, 

2018. 

82Order, New York v. Pruitt, No. 1:18–cv–00406– 

JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018). 

83Order, Sierra Club v. Pruitt, No. 3:15–cv–04328 

(N.D. Cal. May 23, 2017). 

EPA currently has insufficient 

information on vendor capacity and 

limited experience with suppliers of 

control technologies and major 

engineering firms, which results in 

uncertainty in the installation time 

estimates for non-EGU sectors. In 

summary, there is significant 

uncertainty regarding the 

implementation timeframes for various 

NOX control technologies for non-EGUs. 

While the EPA has developed 

preliminary estimates for some potential 

control technologies, these estimates do 

not account for additional 

considerations such as the impacts of 

sector- and region-wide compliance. For 

purposes of this analysis, the EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to assume 

that it is likely that an expeditious 

timeframe for installing sector- or 

region-wide controls on non-EGU 

sources may collectively require four 

years or more. 

3. Focusing on 2023 for Analysis 

As discussed in section III.B, the EPA 

weighed several factors to identify an 

appropriate future analytic year for 

evaluating interstate transport 

obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

First, the EPA identified the relevant 

attainment dates to guide the EPA’s 

consideration as 2021 and 2027, 

respectively the Serious and Severe area 

attainment dates for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Second, the EPA identified and 

analyzed the feasibility and timing 

needed for installing additional NOX

emissions controls. As discussed in 

section III.B.2, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate to assume that planning for, 

installing, and commencing operation of 

new controls, regionally, for EGUs and 

non-EGUs would take up to 48 months, 

and possibly more in some cases, 

following promulgation of a final rule 

requiring appropriate emissions 

reductions. This period of time reflects, 

among other considerations, the time 

needed to regionally develop new postcombustion SCR projects—systems that 

continue to represent the engineering 

gold-standard in terms of reducing NOX

from the U.S. power sector. 

To determine how this feasibility 

assessment should influence potential 

compliance timeframes, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to consider the 

anticipated date of promulgation of a 

rule that would set any appropriate 

emissions reduction requirements, since 

regulated entities cannot be expected or 

required to take action to comply with 

a rule prior to its promulgation. The 

EPA, therefore, considered the 

timeframe in which a future rulemaking 

that might require such emissions 

reductions would likely be finalized. 

The EPA is subject to several statutory 

and court-ordered deadlines to issue 

FIPs (or, alternatively, to fully approve 

a SIP) to address the requirements of the 

good neighbor provision for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS for several states. An 

August 12, 2017 statutory deadline has 

passed for the EPA to act with respect 

to 13 states.80 The EPA also has several 

upcoming statutory deadlines in 2018 

and 2019 to address these requirements 

for eight other CSAPR Update states.81

The timeframe for the EPA’s action to 

resolve the obligation as to five of those 

states is the subject of litigation in the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York. The EPA 

is subject to court-ordered deadlines to 

sign and disseminate a proposed action 

fully addressing the good neighbor 

obligations under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for those five states by no later 

than June 29, 2018, and to promulgate 

a final action addressing these 

requirements by December 6, 2018.82 As 

noted earlier, the EPA is also subject to 

a court-ordered deadline of June 30, 

2018, for the EPA to address these 

requirements for Kentucky,83 which the 

EPA intends to address in a separate 

rulemaking. Considering the EPA’s 

conclusion that four years is an 

expeditious timeframe for 

implementation of any of the control 

strategies considered herein, 

compliance is likely not feasible until 

the 2023 ozone season. In other words, 

48 months from a final rule promulgated 

in December 2018 would be December 

2022, after which the next ozone season 

begins in May 2023. Considering the 

time necessary to implement the 

controls calculated from a realistic 

timeframe in which EPA expects to 

promulgate a final rule requiring such 

controls, the EPA believes that such 

reductions on a variety of sources across 

the region are unlikely to be 

implemented for a full ozone season 

until 2023. 

Finally, consistent with the court’s 

holding in North Carolina, the Agency 

considers this timing in light of 

upcoming attainment dates for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. While 2023 is later than 

the next attainment date for 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious (i.e., July 20, 2021), for the 

reasons discussed above the EPA does 

not believe it is realistically possible 

that substantial emissions control 

requirements could be promulgated and 

implemented by that Serious area 

attainment date. Rather, the most 

expeditious timeframe in which 

additional control strategies could be 

implemented at both EGUs and nonEGUs is four years after promulgation of 

a final rule requiring appropriate 

emissions reductions. At the same time, 

the EPA does not believe that it should 

generally take longer than 2023 to 

install emissions controls on a regional 

basis, based on the analysis above. 

Therefore, there is no basis to postpone 

all emissions reductions to the next 

attainment date after 2023, which is for 

nonattainment areas classified as Severe 

(i.e., July 20, 2027). Accordingly, the 

EPA believes implementation of 

additional emissions reductions by 2023 

is the earliest feasible timeframe that 

could be reasonably required of EGU 

and non-EGU sources that would be 

potentially subject to control 

requirements. Although this year does 

not precisely align with a particular 

attainment date, it reflects the year that 

is as expeditious as practicable for 

region-wide implementation, while also 

taking into account the relevant 

attainment dates. 

Given the current stage of the 2008 

ozone implementation cycle, the EPA’s 

feasibility analysis set forth above, the 

relevant attainment dates, and the 

courts’ holdings in North Carolina and 

EME Homer City II, the EPA believes 

that 2023 is the most appropriate year 

for all states covered in this action, to 

assess downwind air quality and to 

evaluate any remaining requirements 

under the good neighbor provision for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is 

requesting comment on the use of 2023 

as a reasonable year for this assessment. 

C. Air Quality Analysis 

In this section, the Agency describes 

the air quality modeling performed 

consistent with step 1 of the framework 

described in section III.A, to identify 

locations where it expects 

nonattainment or maintenance problems 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in the 2023 analytic year. This section 

includes information on the air quality 

modeling platform used in support of 

the proposed determination with a focus 

on the base year and future base case 

emissions inventories. The May 2018 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31932 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

84Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1–10, 

Supplemental Information on the Interstate 

Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards under Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (Oct. 27, 2017), available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/october-2017-memo-andsupplemental-information-interstate-transport-sips2008-ozone-naaqs. 

85See supra note 43. These potential flexibilities 

include: evaluation of alternative methodologies to 

give independent meaning to the term ‘‘interfere 

with maintenance under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); identification of maintenance 

receptors at risk of exceeding the NAAQS using an 

approach that does not rely on the projection of 

maximum design values; assessment of current and 

projected emissions reductions and whether 

downwind areas have considered and/or utilized 

available mechanisms for regulatory relief; and 

consideration of model performance. 

86 81 FR 74533. 

87The 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. See 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix P. 

88See 795 F.3d at 136. 89All nonattainment receptors also, by definition, 

meet EPA’s criteria for identifying maintenance 

receptors—i.e., in addition to currently measuring 

nonattainment and having projected average design 

values that exceed the NAAQS, the receptors also 

would have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS 

accounting for variability in air quality at the 

receptor. The EPA refers to maintenance receptors 

that are not also nonattainment receptors as 

‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors. 

Air Quality Modeling Technical 

Support Document (AQM TSD) in the 

docket for this rule contains more 

detailed information on the air quality 

modeling for 2023 used to support this 

rulemaking. 

The EPA provided an opportunity to 

comment on the air quality modeling 

platform and air quality modeling 

results that are used in this proposed 

determination when it published a 

Notice of Data Availability (82 FR 1733) 

on January 6, 2017, which provided the 

preliminary modeling results for the 

2023 analytic year. Specifically, in the 

NODA the EPA requested comment on 

the data and methodologies related to 

the 2011 and 2023 emissions and the air 

quality modeling to project 2023 ozone 

concentrations and ozone contributions. 

While the EPA issued this NODA to 

provide information to states for the 70 

ppb 2015 ozone NAAQS, the modeling 

approaches and future year projection 

methods were also applicable for the 75 

ppb 2008 ozone NAAQS. In fact, 

commenters explicitly commented on 

these methods with respect to the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The EPA considered 

comments received on the NODA in the 

development of air quality modeling 

analysis used in this proposed 

determination. 

The modeling results presented here 

were originally released to the public 

with an accompanying memorandum on 

October 27, 2017.84

1. Definition of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

In this action, the EPA is continuing 

to apply the CSAPR Update approach to 

identifying nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year. 

The EPA here describes the analytical 

approach pursued in the CSAPR and 

CSAPR update with regard to the good 

neighbor requirement for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. For consistency’s sake, 

the analysis and discussion underlying 

and presented in this proposal adheres 

to that analytical approach. However, as 

noted previously, EPA has identified a 

number of potential flexibilities in 

identifying downwind air quality 

problems for states developing good 

neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS.85 However, the EPA finds that 

it is reasonable to use the same 

methodology that was used to identify 

upwind states’ good neighbor 

obligations under the CSAPR Update 

because this rule addresses interstate 

transport with respect to the same 

NAAQS and the same states as the ones 

at issue in that action.86

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) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s opinion in North Carolina, the 

EPA separately identified downwind 

areas expected to be in nonattainment of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and downwind 

areas expected to have problems 

maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, the EPA has identified as 

nonattainment receptors those monitors 

that both currently measure 

nonattainment based on measured 

2014–2016 design values 87 and that the 

EPA projects will be in nonattainment 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023 (i.e., 

are projected to have average design 

values that exceed the NAAQS). 

The EPA has identified maintenance 

receptors as those receptors that would 

have difficulty maintaining the relevant 

NAAQS in a scenario that accounts for 

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 base-year 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. Therefore, 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 downwind areas where 

emissions from upwind states could 

therefore interfere with the area’s ability 

to maintain the NAAQS. For this 

proposal, the EPA assesses the 

magnitude of the maximum projected 

design value for 2023 at each receptor 

in relation to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Where that value exceeds the NAAQS, 

the EPA determines that receptor to be 

a ‘‘maintenance’’ receptor for purposes 

of defining interference with 

maintenance, consistent with the 

method used in CSAPR and upheld by 

the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City II.88

That is, monitoring sites with a 

maximum projected design value that 

exceeds the NAAQS in 2023 are 

considered to have a maintenance 

problem in 2023.89

Maintenance-only receptors therefore 

include those sites where the projected 

maximum design value exceeds the 

NAAQS, but the projected average 

design value is at or below the NAAQS. 

In addition, those sites that are currently 

measuring clean data (i.e., are at or 

below the 2008 ozone NAAQS), but are 

projected to be in 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. Unlike 

nonattainment receptors, the EPA did 

not consider current clean monitored 

data to disqualify a receptor from being 

identified as a maintenance receptor in 

order to account for the possibility that 

certain areas would fail to maintain the 

NAAQS in the future, even though they 

may be currently attaining the NAAQS. 

North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 910–11 

(finding that failure to give independent 

significance to the maintenance prong 

‘‘provides no protection for downwind 

areas that, despite EPA’s predictions, 

still find themselves struggling to meet 

NAAQS due to upwind interference’’). 

For further details regarding the EPA’s 

identification of receptors in the CSAPR 

Update, see 81 FR 74526. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31933 

90U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. 

Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment 

of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze, Research Triangle Park, NC, available at 

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

Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf. 

91CAMx v6.40 was the most recent public release 

version of CAMx at the time the EPA updated its 

modeling in fall 2017. Comprehensive Air Quality 

Model with Extensions version 6.40 User’s Guide. 

Ramboll Environ, December 2016, available at 

http://www.camx.com/. 

92This TSD is also available in the docket for this 

proposed rule and at https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-modeling/additional-updates-2011-and2023-emissions-version-63-platform-technical. 

93Technical support documents are available for 

each iteration of the inventories on EPA’s emissions 

modeling website: https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-modeling/2011-version-6-air-emissionsmodeling-platforms. 

2. Overview of Air Quality Modeling 

Platform 

The EPA performed nationwide 

photochemical modeling for 2023 to 

identify nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors relevant for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. For this proposed 

rule, the EPA performed air quality 

modeling for two emissions scenarios: 

(1) a 2011 base year; and (2) the 2023 

analytic year (i.e., a business-as-usual 

scenario in 2023: One without any 

additional interstate ozone transport 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the CSAPR Update). 

The 2011 base year has previously 

been used to support the CSAPR Update 

proposal and final rule. The EPA chose 

to continue using 2011 as the base year 

because when EPA’s analyses 

commenced, 2011 was the most recent 

emissions modeling platform available 

that included future year projected 

inventories, as are needed for transport 

analyses. Using 2011 as a base year also 

remains appropriate from the standpoint 

of good modeling practice. 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. As described in the AQM 

TSD, the EPA’s guidance for ozone 

attainment demonstration modeling, 

hereafter referred to as the modeling 

guidance, recommends modeling a time 

period with meteorology conducive to 

ozone formation for purposes of 

projecting future year design values.90

The EPA therefore believes that 

meteorological conditions and 

emissions during the summer of 2011 

provide an appropriate basis for 

projecting 2023 ozone concentrations. 

For this proposal, the EPA used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx) version 6.40 91 to 

simulate pollutant concentrations for 

the 2011 base year and the 2023 future 

year scenarios. This version of CAMx 

was the most recent publicly available 

version of this model at the time that the 

EPA performed air quality modeling for 

this proposed rule. CAMx is a grid cellbased, multi-pollutant photochemical 

model that simulates the formation and 

fate of ozone and fine particles in the 

atmosphere. The CAMx model 

applications were performed for a 

modeling region (i.e., modeling domain) 

that covers the contiguous 48 United 

States, the District of Columbia, and 

adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico 

using grid cells with a horizontal 

resolution of 12 km 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, 2023 future year projections 

of these emissions, and 2011 

meteorology for air quality modeling 

with CAMx. In the remainder of this 

section, the EPA provides an overview 

of the 2011 and 2023 emissions 

inventories and the methods for 

identifying nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors along with a list 

of 2023 baseline nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors in the U.S. 

To ensure the reliability of its 

modeling results, the EPA conducted an 

operational model performance 

evaluation of the 2011 modeling 

platform by comparing the 8-hour daily 

maximum ozone concentrations 

predicted during the May through 

September ozone season to the 

corresponding measured concentrations 

in 2011. This evaluation generally 

followed the approach described in the 

modeling guidance. Details of the model 

performance evaluation are described in 

the AQM TSD. The model performance 

results indicate that the 8-hour daily 

maximum ozone concentrations 

predicted by the 2011 CAMx modeling 

platform generally reflect the 

corresponding magnitude of observed 8- 

hour ozone concentrations on high 

ozone days in the 12-km U.S. modeling 

domain. These results provide 

confidence in the ability of the 

modeling platform to provide a 

reasonable projection of expected future 

year ozone concentrations and 

contributions. 

3. Emissions Inventories 

The EPA developed emissions 

inventories for this rule, including 

emissions estimates for EGUs, non-EGU 

point sources, stationary nonpoint 

sources, onroad mobile sources, 

nonroad mobile sources, wildfires, 

prescribed fires, and biogenic emissions. 

The EPA’s air quality modeling relies on 

this comprehensive set of emissions 

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 emissions inventories 

for air quality modeling, the EPA 

processed the emissions inventories 

using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System 

version 3.7 to produce the gridded, 

hourly, speciated, model-ready 

emissions for input to the CAMx air 

quality model. Additional information 

on the development of the emissions 

inventories and on datasets used during 

the emissions modeling process for this 

proposed rule is provided in the 

October 2017 Technical Support 

Document ‘‘Additional Updates to 

Emissions Inventories for the Version 

6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform 

for the Year 2023’’ (Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD).92

The emissions inventories, 

methodologies, and data used for the air 

quality modeling for this proposed rule 

incorporate public comments received 

on the January 2017 NODA. The 

updates resulting from comments 

received on this NODA are documented 

in the Proposed Rule Emissions 

Modeling TSD. The emissions 

inventories for this proposed rule were 

the result of several iterations of 

comments on the data and methods 

used in the 2011 emissions modeling 

platform. The initial modeling platform 

based on the 2011 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) was released for public 

comment in November 2013 through a 

NODA (78 FR 70935). Future year 

inventories for 2018 were released 

shortly thereafter through a separate 

NODA in January 2014 (79 FR 2437). 

Updated inventories for 2011 and the 

year 2017 were released for public 

comment in August 2015 through a 

notice prior to the proposed CSAPR 

Update. 80 FR 46271. The comments 

were incorporated into inventories used 

for the proposal modeling in this action. 

During 2016, the comments received on 

the proposal inventories were 

incorporated into the final CSAPR 

Update inventories for years 2011 and 

2017. 81 FR 74527. In late 2016, 

inventories for the year 2023 were 

developed using methods similar to 

those of the CSAPR Update, and the 

resulting inventories were released in 

the January 2017 NODA described 

above.93

The EPA emissions data representing 

the year 2011 supports air quality 

modeling of a base year from which 

future air quality could be forecasted. 

The 2011 emissions inventories used in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31934 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

94Biogenic emissions and emissions from 

wildfires and prescribed fires were held constant 

between 2011 and 2023 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. 

95As recommended in the modeling guidance, 

the acceptability of model performance was judged 

by considering the 2011 CAMx performance results 

in light of the range of performance found in recent 

regional ozone model applications. These other 

modeling studies represent a wide range of 

modeling analyses that cover various models, 

model configurations, domains, years and/or 

episodes, and chemical mechanisms. Overall, the 

ozone model performance results for the 2011 

CAMx simulations are within the range found in 

other recent peer-reviewed and regulatory 

applications. The model performance results, as 

described in the AQM TSD, demonstrate that the 

predictions from the 2011 modeling platform 

correspond to measured data in terms of the 

magnitude, temporal fluctuations, and spatial 

differences for 8-hour daily maximum ozone. 

96Also see the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis 

Final Rule Technical Support Document. EPA. 

August 2016. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/ozone_

transport_policy_analysis_final_rule_tsd.pdf. 

97The EPA uses the U.S. EIA Form 860 as a 

source for upcoming controls, retirements, and new 

units. 

98Available at https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform. 

99For more information on the 2011 National 

Emissions Inventory version 2, see https://

www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2011- 

national-emissions-inventory-nei-technical-supportdocument. 

the air quality modeling were based on 

the inventories released with the 

January 2017 NODA with updates 

incorporated as a result of comments on 

the NODA and as a result of improved 

data and methods that became available 

after the NODA modeling was 

completed. The future base case 

scenario modeled for 2023 includes a 

representation of changes in activity 

data and of predicted emissions 

reductions from on-the-books actions, 

including planned emissions control 

installations and promulgated federal 

measures that affect anthropogenic 

emissions.94 The emissions inventories 

for air quality modeling include sources 

that are held constant between the base 

and future years, such as biogenic 

emissions and emissions from 

agricultural, wild and prescribed fires.95

The emissions inventories used for 

Canada were received from 

Environment and Climate Change 

Canada in April 2017 and were 

provided for the years 2013 and 2025. 

This was the first time that future year 

projected inventories for Canada were 

provided directly by Environment and 

Climate Change Canada and the new 

inventories are thought to be an 

improvement over inventories projected 

by EPA. The EPA used the Canadian 

emissions inventories without adjusting 

the emissions to the represented year 

because the EPA lacks specific 

knowledge regarding Canadian 

emissions trends and because the 

interval of years (i.e., 12) was the same 

as that used for the U.S. modeling 

which relied on 2011 to 2023 interval. 

For Mexico, inventory data was based 

on a 2023 run of MOVES-Mexico. For 

area, nonroad, and point source 

emissions in Mexico, EPA used the 

Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de 

Mexico using 2018 and 2025 data 

projections to interpolate 2023 

estimates. 

The modeled annual NOX and SO2

emissions for EGUs for the year 2011 are 

based primarily on data from 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS), with other EGU 

pollutants estimated using emissions 

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. The modeled 2011 

inventories include some updates to 

2011 EGU stack parameters and 

emissions made in response to 

comments on the January 2017 NODA. 

For more information on the details of 

how the 2011 EGU emissions were 

developed and prepared for air quality 

modeling, see the Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD. 

As summarized in the October memo, 

and described in detail in the Proposed 

Rule Emissions Modeling TSD, the EPA 

projected future 2023 baseline EGU 

emissions using an approach that is 

consistent with the EGU projections that 

the EPA used in the CSAPR Update, 

specifically using the EGU projection 

methodology used to develop the 

‘‘budget-setting base case.’’ 81 FR 

74543.96 The EGU projection begins 

with 2016 reported SO2 and NOX data 

for units reporting under the Acid Rain 

and CSAPR programs under 40 CFR part 

75. These were the most recent ozone 

season data available at the time of the 

EPA’s analysis. The EPA first held these 

observed emissions levels constant for 

its 2023 estimates, but then made some 

unit-specific adjustments to emissions 

to account for upcoming retirements, 

post-combustion control retrofits, coalto-gas conversions, combustion controls 

upgrades, new units, CSAPR Update 

compliance, state rules, and Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirements under the regional haze 

program of the CAA.97 The resulting 

estimated EGU emissions values are 

therefore based on the latest reported 

operational data combined with known 

and anticipated fleet and pollution 

controls changes. For emissions from 

EGUs not reporting under 40 CFR part 

75, the EPA largely relied on unadjusted 

2011 NEI data for its 2023 

assumptions.98 Additional details are 

provided in the Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD. 

The 2011 non-EGU point source 

emissions in the 2011 base case 

inventory generally match those in the 

2011 NEI version 2.99 Prior to air quality 

modeling, the emissions inventories 

must be processed into a format that is 

appropriate for the air quality model to 

use. Details on the development and 

processing of the emissions for 2011 and 

on the development of the 2023 nonEGU emissions inventories are available 

in the Proposed Rule Emissions 

Modeling TSD. Projection factors and 

percent reductions used in this proposal 

to estimate 2023 emissions inventories 

reflect comments received through the 

January 2017 NODA, along with 

emissions reductions due to national 

and local rules, control programs, plant 

closures, consent decrees and 

settlements. The Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD contains 

details on the factors used and on their 

respective impacts on the emissions 

inventories. 

A recent and important 

methodological update to the emissions 

inventory implemented after the release 

of the January 2017 NODA is a revised 

methodology for estimating point and 

nonpoint 2023 emissions from the oil 

and gas sector. The projection factors 

used in the updated 2023 oil and gas 

emissions inventory incorporate statelevel factors based on historical growth 

from 2011–2015 and region-specific 

factors that represent projected growth 

from 2015 to 2023. The 2011–2015 statelevel factors were based on historical 

state oil and gas production data 

published by the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), while the 2015– 

2023 factors are based on projected oil 

and gas production in EIA’s 2017 

Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 

Reference Case without the Clean Power 

Plan for the six EIA supply regions. The 

2017 AEO was the latest available at the 

time the modeling was performed. 

Details on the revised methodology that 

the EPA used to project oil and gas 

emissions to 2023, as well as changes to 

the base year 2011 and future year 2023 

emissions inventories for other sectors, 

can be found in the Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD. 

The EPA developed the onroad 

mobile source emissions using the 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator, version 2014a 

(MOVES2014a). The agency computed 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31935 

100U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. 

Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment 

of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

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

guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance2014.pdf. 

these emissions within SMOKE by 

multiplying the MOVES-based 

emissions factors with the activity data 

appropriate to each year of modeling. 

MOVES2014a reflects projected changes 

to fuel usage and onroad mobile control 

programs finalized as of March 2014. 

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 the fleet and fuel supply by 

that year. Local control programs such 

as the California Low Emission Vehicle 

(LEV) III program, also implemented in 

states other than California, are 

included in the onroad mobile source 

emissions. Activity data for onroad 

mobile sources, such as the vehicle 

miles traveled in 2023, were projected 

for future year using trends identified in 

AEO 2016. 

The commercial marine category 3 

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

2011 base case emissions inventory for 

this rule are equivalent to those in the 

2011NEIv2 with the inclusion of 

updated emissions for California. 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 2023 are incorporated in the 

2023 projected emissions for C3 marine 

sources. An update made for this 

modeling was to treat the larger C3 

marine sources with plume rise in the 

modeling, thereby putting the emissions 

into model layers higher than groundlevel. This was done because the ships 

have stacks that release emissions 

higher than the 20-meter threshold for 

the ground-level layer in the air quality 

model. The height at which the 

emissions are inserted into the model 

impacts how the emissions are 

transported within the model. The 

emissions from the smaller category 1 

(C1) and category 2 (C2) vessels are still 

released into the ground-level layer of 

the model. 

To develop the nonroad mobile 

source emissions 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) (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

nmim.htm). The nonroad mobile 

emissions 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 Proposed Rule Emissions 

Modeling TSD. 

The emissions for stationary nonpoint 

sources in the 2011 base case emissions 

inventory are largely consistent with 

those in the 2011NEIv2. 2023 estimates 

were projected using a variety of factors, 

including AEO 2017 projections for 

2023 and state projection factors using 

EIA data from 2011–2015. For more 

information on the nonpoint sources in 

the 2011 base case inventory, see the 

Proposed Rule Emissions Modeling TSD 

and the 2011NEIv2 TSD. Based on 

comments from the January 2017 

NODA, where states provided the EPA 

with information about projected 

control measures or changes in 

nonpoint source emissions, the EPA 

incorporated that information into its 

projections. These changes were limited 

and are discussed in the Proposed Rule 

Emissions Modeling TSD. 

4. Air Quality Modeling To Identify 

Nonattainment and Maintenance 

Receptors 

The following summarizes the 

procedures for projecting future-year 8- 

hour ozone average and maximum 

design values to 2023 to determine 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors. Consistent with the EPA’s 

modeling guidance, the agency uses 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 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 rule is 2011, the EPA is using the 

base period 2009–2013 ambient ozone 

design value data to project 2023 

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 three 

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 three design values 

creates a ‘‘5-year weighted average’’ 

value. The 5-year weighted average 

values were then projected to 2023. To 

project 8-hour ozone design values, the 

agency used the 2011 base year and 

2023 future base-case model-predicted 

ozone concentrations to calculate 

relative response factors (RRFs) for the 

location of each monitoring site. The 

RRFs were then applied to actual 

monitored data, i.e., the 2009–2013 

average ozone design values (to generate 

the projected average design values) and 

the individual design values for 2009– 

2011, 2010–2012, and 2011–2013 (to 

generate potential maximum design 

values). Details of this approach are 

provided in the Proposed Rule AQM 

TSD. 

The EPA considers projected design 

values that are greater than or equal to 

76.0 ppb to be violating the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in 2023. As noted previously, 

nonattainment receptors are those sites 

that have projected average design 

values greater than the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and are also violating the 

NAAQS based on the most recent 

measured air quality data. Therefore, as 

an additional step, for those sites that 

are projected to be violating the NAAQS 

based on the average design values in 

2023, the EPA examined the most recent 

measured design value data to 

determine if the site was currently 

violating the NAAQS. For this proposal, 

the agency examined ambient data for 

the 2014–2016 period, which are the 

most recent available, certified 

measured design values at the time of 

this rule. 

As discussed above, maintenanceonly receptors include both: (1) Those 

sites with projected average and 

maximum 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 

76.0 ppb or greater. 

In projecting these future year design 

values, the EPA applied its own 

modeling guidance,100 which 

recommends using model predictions 

from the ‘‘3 x 3’’ array of grid cells 

surrounding the location of the 

monitoring site to calculate the relative 

response factors and identify future 

areas of nonattainment. In addition, in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31936 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

101A model grid cell is identified as a ‘‘water’’ 

cell if more than 50 percent of the grid cell is water 

based on the 2006 National Land Cover Database. 

Grid cells that meet this criterion are treated as 

entirely over water in the Weather Research 

Forecast (WRF) modeling used to develop the 2011 

meteorology for EPA’s air quality modeling. 

102The EPA recognizes that the modeling results 

indicate a substantial projected improvement in 

ozone air quality (compared to current measured 

ozone levels) at several locations, including three 

monitors in Connecticut located near the sea—i.e., 

on the order of 10–12 ppb. 

103From 40 CFR 50.15(b): ‘‘The 8-hour primary 

and secondary ambient air quality standards are 

met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average O3 concentration is less 

than or equal to 0.075 ppm, as determined in 

accordance with appendix P to this part.’’ 

104From section 2.2 of appendix P to 40 CFR part 

50: ‘‘The computed 3-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3

concentrations shall be reported to three decimal 

places (the digits to the right of the third decimal 

place are truncated, consistent with the data 

handling procedures for the reported data).’’ 

light of comments on the January 2017 

NODA and other analyses, the EPA also 

projected 2023 design values based on 

a modified version of this approach for 

those monitoring sites located in coastal 

areas. In brief, in the alternative 

approach, the EPA eliminated from the 

design value calculations those 

modeling data in grid cells not 

containing a monitoring site that are 

dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 

percent of the land use in the grid cell 

is water).101 For each individual 

monitoring site, the EPA is providing 

the base period 2009–2013 average and 

maximum design values, 2023 projected 

average and maximum design values 

based on both the ‘‘3 x 3’’ approach and 

the alternative approach affecting 

coastal sites, and 2014–2016 measured 

design values. As discussed further 

below, under both the 3 x 3 approach 

and the alternative approach all 

monitoring sites in the Eastern U.S. are 

modeled to be clean for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in 2023. Thus, according to the 

EPA’s findings, there will be no 

remaining nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in the eastern 

U.S. in 2023. 

Tables III.C–1 and III.C–2 contain the 

ambient 2009–2013 base period average 

and maximum 8-hour ozone design 

values, the 2023 projected baseline 

average and maximum design values, 

and the ambient 2014–2016 design 

values for the air quality monitors that 

were identified in the CSAPR Update as 

having remaining problems attaining or 

maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

2017, even with CSAPR Update 

implementation. Table III.C–1 contains 

data for the monitors identified as 

remaining nonattainment receptors in 

2017 in the CSAPR Update and Table 

III.C–2 contains data for the monitors 

identified as remaining maintenanceonly receptors in 2017 in the CSAPR 

Update.102 The design values for all 

monitoring sites in the contiguous U.S. 

are provided in the docket. According to 

the EPA’s findings, there are no 

remaining nonattainment or 

maintenance receptors in the eastern 

U.S. in 2023. 

The EPA solicits public comment on 

the reliability of the modeling data, 

including any information which may 

support or not support these 

results.103 104

TABLE III.C–1—BASE PERIOD, CURRENT (2014–2016), AND 2023 PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR MONITORS

IDENTIFIED AS REMAINING NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN 2017 IN THE CSAPR UPDATE 103 104

Monitor ID State County 

2009– 

2013 

Avg 

2009– 

2013 

Max 

2014– 

2016 

2023en 

‘‘3 x 3’’ 

Avg 

2023en 

‘‘3 x 3’’ 

Max 

2023en 

‘‘No 

Water’’ 

Avg 

2023en 

‘‘No 

Water’’ 

Max 

090019003 ...................... Connecticut .. Fairfield ........ 83.7 87 85 72.7 75.6 73.0 75.9 

090099002 ...................... Connecticut .. New Haven .. 85.7 89 76 71.2 73.9 69.9 72.6 

480391004 ...................... Texas ........... Brazoria ........ 88.0 89 75 74.0 74.9 74.0 74.9 

484392003 ...................... Texas ........... Tarrant ......... 87.3 90 73 72.5 74.8 72.5 74.8 

484393009 ...................... Texas ........... Tarrant ......... 86.0 86 75 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 

551170006 ...................... Wisconsin ..... Sheboygan ... 84.3 87 79 70.8 73.1 72.8 75.1 

TABLE III.C–2—BASE PERIOD, CURRENT (2014–2016), AND 2023 PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES (ppb) FOR MONITORS

IDENTIFIED AS REMAINING MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN 2017 IN THE CSAPR UPDATE

Monitor ID State County 

2009– 

2013 

Avg 

2009– 

2013 

Max 

2014– 

2016 

2023en 

‘‘3 x 3’’ 

Avg 

2023en 

‘‘3 x 3’’ 

Max 

2023en 

‘‘No 

Water’’ 

Avg 

2023en 

‘‘No 

Water’’ 

Max 

090010017 ...................... Connecticut .. Fairfield ........ 80.3 83 80 69.8 72.1 68.9 71.2 

090013007 ...................... Connecticut .. Fairfield ........ 84.3 89 81 71.2 75.2 71.0 75.0 

240251001 ...................... Maryland ...... Harford ......... 90.0 93 73 71.4 73.8 70.9 73.3 

260050003 ...................... Michigan ....... Allegan ......... 82.7 86 75 69.0 71.8 69.0 71.7 

360850067 ...................... New York ..... Richmond ..... 81.3 83 76 71.9 73.4 67.1 68.5 

361030002 ...................... New York ..... Suffolk .......... 83.3 85 72 72.5 74.0 74.0 75.5 

481210034 ...................... Texas ........... Denton ......... 84.3 87 80 69.7 72.0 69.7 72.0 

482010024 ...................... Texas ........... Harris ........... 80.3 83 79 70.4 72.8 70.4 72.8 

482011034 ...................... Texas ........... Harris ........... 81.0 82 73 70.8 71.6 70.8 71.6 

482011039 ...................... Texas ........... Harris ........... 82.0 84 67 71.8 73.6 71.8 73.5 

5. Pollutant Transport From Upwind 

States 

Although the EPA has conducted 

nationwide contribution modeling for 

2023, the EPA does not believe this 

information is necessary for evaluating 

remaining good neighbor obligations for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind 

because there are no ozone monitoring 

sites in the Eastern U.S. that are 

expected to have problems attaining or 

maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 

2023. Nonetheless, the results of EPA’s 

state-by-state ozone contribution 

modeling were released in a 

memorandum on March 27, 2018 and 

are also available in the docket for this 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31937 

105 Information on the Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA 

Memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors. 

March 27, 2018. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/ 

transport_memo_03_27_18_1.pdf. 

106See Table III.D–1 for a list of states covered by 

this proposal. EPA has also already separately 

proposed to approve Kentucky’s draft SIP submittal 

demonstrating that the CSAPR Update is a full 

remedy for Kentucky’s good neighbor obligation for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 17123 (Apr. 18, 

2018). 

action.105 The EPA notes that, while the 

air quality modeling did identify 

potential remaining problem receptors 

in California in 2023, none of EPA’s 

prior analysis nor its current 

contribution modeling have linked any 

of the CSAPR Update states in the 

eastern U.S. to any of those potential 

remaining problem receptors. Therefore, 

the EPA does not believe there is a need 

to further evaluate the contributions of 

the 20 CSAPR Update states to any 

downwind receptors identified in EPA’s 

2017 modeling conducted for the 

CSAPR Update. 

D. Proposed Determination 

The EPA proposes to determine that, 

with CSAPR Update implementation, 20 

eastern states’ good neighbor obligations 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are fully 

addressed.106 The states covered by this 

action are listed in table III.D–1. The 

EPA’s proposed determination is based 

on proposed findings that: (1) 2023 is a 

reasonable future analytic year for 

evaluating ozone transport problems 

with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS; 

and (2) that interstate ozone transport 

air quality modeling projections for 

2023 indicate that no further air quality 

problems will remain in the east in 

2023. 

As a result, the EPA proposes to 

conclude that, after implementation of 

the CSAPR Update, none of the states 

analyzed will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in downwind states, and therefore that 

the CSAPR update fully addresses those 

states’ good neighbor obligations with 

respect to that NAAQS. In accord with 

this determination, the EPA has no 

remaining obligation issue FIPs nor are 

states required to submit SIPs that 

would establish additional requirements 

for sources in these states to further 

reduce transported ozone pollution with 

regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

As explained in more detail in section 

III.B, the EPA’s selection of 2023 as a 

reasonable future analytic year is 

supported by an assessment of 

attainment dates for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and feasibility for control 

strategies to reduce NOX in CSAPR 

Update states. The EPA’s NOX control 

strategy feasibility assessment 

prioritizes NOX control strategies in 

CSAPR Update states that would be 

additional to those strategies that were 

already quantified into CSAPR Update 

emissions budgets. The EPA believes 

that 2023 is an appropriate future 

analytic year, taking into consideration 

relevant attainment dates, because it is 

the first ozone season for which 

significant new controls to reduce NOX

could be feasibly installed across the 

CSAPR Update region, and thus 

represents the timeframe that is as 

expeditious as practicable for upwind 

states to implement additional 

emissions reductions. Furthermore, as 

described in section III.C, the EPA’s 

analysis of step 1 for the 2023 analytic 

year indicates that there are no 

monitoring sites in the east that are 

projected to have nonattainment or 

maintenance problems with respect to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023. 

Together, these findings lead to EPA’s 

proposed determination that—with 

CSAPR Update implementation— 

CSAPR Update states are not expected 

to significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in downwind states in 2023. 

As a result of this proposed 

determination, the EPA proposes to find 

that the promulgation of the CSAPR 

Update for these states fully satisfies the 

requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and therefore also satisfies the Agency’s 

obligation pursuant to CAA section 

110(c) for these states. Accordingly, the 

EPA would have no remaining 

obligation to issue FIPs nor are the 

states required to submit SIPs that 

would further reduce transported ozone 

pollution, beyond the existing CSAPR 

Update requirements, with regard to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE III.D–1—STATES COVERED BY

THE PROPOSED DETERMINATION REGARDING GOOD NEIGHBOR OBLIGATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE

NAAQS 

State name 

Alabama. 

Arkansas. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Louisiana. 

Maryland. 

Michigan. 

Mississippi. 

TABLE III.D–1—STATES COVERED BY

THE PROPOSED DETERMINATION REGARDING GOOD NEIGHBOR OBLIGATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE

NAAQS—Continued 

State name 

Missouri. 

New Jersey. 

New York. 

Ohio. 

Oklahoma. 

Pennsylvania. 

Texas. 

Virginia. 

West Virginia. 

Wisconsin. 

Consistent with this proposed 

determination, this action also proposes 

minor revisions to the existing statespecific sections of the CSAPR Update 

regulations for states other than 

Kentucky and Tennessee. The revisions 

will remove the current statements 

indicating that the CSAPR Update FIP 

for each such state only partially 

addresses the state’s good neighbor 

obligation under CAA section 

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

NAAQS. Because states can replace the 

CSAPR Update FIPs with SIPs, these 

revisions will also mean that a SIP that 

is approved through notice-andcomment rulemaking to fully replace 

the CSAPR Update FIP for one of these 

states would also fully address the 

state’s good neighbor obligation for this 

NAAQS. In particular, the EPA proposes 

to find that the Agency’s previous 

approval of Alabama’s CSAPR Update 

SIP fully satisfies the state’s good 

neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Thus, Alabama would have no 

obligation to submit any additional SIP 

revision addressing this obligation. 

The EPA seeks comments on this 

proposal, including the legal, technical, 

and policy decisions informing the 

EPA’s proposed determination that the 

CSAPR Update fully addresses the good 

neighbor obligation with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for 20 eastern 

states. Note that the EPA in this 

proposal is not reconsidering or 

reopening the determinations made in 

the CSAPR Update, which was finalized 

in 2016, regarding the obligations of 

upwind states pursuant to the good 

neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Those determinations have 

already been subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking processes, and the 

FIPs promulgated in that action are 

already being implemented. The 

analysis conducted in this action does 

not reconsider any analysis conducted 

or determinations made in that action. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
31938 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Thus, the EPA is not requesting 

comment on any of the legal, technical, 

or policy decisions informing that the 

CSAPR Update. 

IV. 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 a 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. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be 

subject to Executive Order 13771 

because this proposed rule is expected 

to result in no more than de minimis 

costs. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0667. The 

minor revisions to the FIP provisions 

proposed in this action would have no 

impact on monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements for affected 

EGUs in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 

making this determination, the impact 

of concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities. An 

agency may certify that a rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden, or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This action 

makes a minor modification to existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs and does not 

impose new requirements on any entity. 

The EPA has therefore concluded that 

this action will have no net regulatory 

burden for all directly regulated small 

entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action simply updates the existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no 

further federal regulatory requirements 

are necessary. 

F. 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. This action 

simply updates the existing CSAPR 

Update FIPs to establish that no further 

federal regulatory requirements are 

necessary. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. This 

action simply updates the existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no 

further federal regulatory requirements 

are necessary. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

Consistent with the EPA Policy on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with 

tribal officials while developing the 

CSAPR Update. A summary of that 

consultation is provided in the 

preamble for the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 

74584 (October 26, 2016). 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it simply updates the existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no 

further federal regulatory requirements 

are necessary. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action simply updates the existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no 

further federal regulatory requirements 

are necessary. 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898 

because it does not establish an 

environmental health or safety standard. 

This action simply updates the existing 

CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no 

further federal regulatory requirements 

are necessary. Consistent with Executive 

Order 12898 and the EPA’s 

environmental justice policies, the EPA 

considered effects on low-income 

populations, minority populations, and 

indigenous peoples while developing 

the CSAPR Update. The process and 

results of that consideration are 

described in the preamble for the 

CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74585 (October 

26, 2016). 

L. 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, but 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ 

The EPA proposes to find that any 

final action related to this rulemaking is 

‘‘nationally applicable’’ or, in the 

alternative, is based on a determination 

of ‘‘nationwide scope and effect’’ within 

the meaning of section 307(b)(1). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31939 

107See, e.g., Texas v. EPA, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 

5654 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding SIP call to 13 states 

to be nationally applicable and thus transferring the 

case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit in accordance with CAA section 307(b)(1)); 

W. Va. Chamber of Commerce v. Browner, No. 98 

1013, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 30621, at *24 (4th Cir. 

1998) (finding the NOX SIP Call to be nationally 

applicable based on ‘‘the nationwide scope and 

interdependent nature of the problem, the large 

number of states, spanning most of the country, 

being regulated, the common core of knowledge and 

analysis involved in formulating the rule, and the 

common legal interpretation advanced of section 

110 of the Clean Air Act’’). Cf. Judgment, Cedar 

Falls Utilities v. EPA, No. 16–4504 (8th Cir. Feb. 22, 

2017) (transferring petition to review CSAPR 

Update to D.C. Circuit). 

Through this rulemaking action, the 

EPA is interpreting section 110 of the 

CAA, a statutory provision that applies 

to all states and territories in the United 

States. In addition, the proposed rule 

addresses emissions impacts and 

sources located in 20 States, which are 

located in multiple EPA Regions and 

federal circuits. The proposed rule is 

also based on a common core of factual 

findings and analyses concerning the 

transport of pollutants between the 

different states. Courts have found 

similar actions to be nationally 

applicable.107 Furthermore, EPA intends 

this interpretation and approach to be 

consistently implemented nationwide 

with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

For these reasons, the Administrator 

proposes to determine that any final 

action related to this proposal is 

nationally applicable or, in the 

alternative, is based on a determination 

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 must 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, ‘‘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 

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 Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: June 29, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 52 of chapter I of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

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. 

§§ 52.54, 52.184, 52.731, 52.789, 52.840, 

52.882, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1186, 52.1284, 

52.1326, 52.1584, 52.1684, 52.1882, 52.1930, 

52.2040, 52.2283, 52.2440, 52.2540, and 

52.2587 [Amended] 

■ 2. In 40 CFR part 52 remove the text 

‘‘, provided that because the CSAPR FIP 

was promulgated as a partial rather than 

full remedy for an obligation of the State 

to address interstate air pollution, the 

SIP revision likewise will constitute a 

partial rather than full remedy for the 

State’s obligation unless provided 

otherwise in the Administrator’s 

approval of the SIP revision’’ from the 

second sentence in each of the following 

paragraphs: 

■ a. Section 52.54(b)(2); 

■ b. Section 52.184(b); 

■ c. Section 52.731(b)(2); 

■ d. Section 52.789(b)(2); 

■ e. Section 52.840(b)(2); 

■ f. Section 52.882(b)(1); 

■ g. Section 52.984(d)(2); 

■ h. Section 52.1084(b)(2); 

■ i. Section 52.1186(e)(2); 

■ j. Section 52.1284(b); 

■ k. Section 52.1326(b)(2); 

■ l. Section 52.1584(e)(2); 

■ m. Section 52.1684(b)(2); 

■ n. Section 52.1882(b)(2); 

■ o. Section 52.1930(b); 

■ p. Section 52.2040(b)(2); 

■ q. Section 52.2283(d)(2); 

■ r. Section 52.2440(b)(2); 

■ s. Section 52.2540(b)(2); and 

■ t. Section 52.2587(e)(2). 

[FR Doc. 2018–14737 Filed 7–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682; FRL–9980–66– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU12 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants and New 

Source Performance Standards: 

Petroleum Refinery Sector 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) Refinery MACT 1, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 1, 2015, and subsequently 

amended on July 13, 2016. The 

December 1, 2015, action was the result 

of a risk and technology review in 

which the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to 

Refinery MACT 1 and Refinery MACT 2. 

The July 13, 2016, action finalized 

technical corrections and clarifications, 

as well as changes to compliance dates 

for various emission sources, including 

the maintenance vent standards that 

apply during periods of startup, 

shutdown, maintenance, or inspection. 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the compliance dates for 

maintenance vents to January 30, 2019. 

These proposed revisions do not affect 

any other requirements in the December 

1, 2015, or July 13, 2016, final actions. 

This proposed action will have an 

insignificant effect on emissions 

reductions and no effect on costs. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before August 9, 2018. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

requested by July 16, 2018, then we will 

hold a public hearing on July 25, 2018 

at the location described in the 

ADDRESSES section. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the 

public hearing will be July 23, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

detail about how the EPA treats 

submitted comments. Regulations.gov is 

our preferred method of receiving 

comments. However, the following 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1