Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42235 

(28) System identifier and name: 

DMDC 18 DoD, Synchronized 

Predeployment and Operational Tracker 

Enterprise Suite (SPOT–ES) Records. 

(i) Exemption: Information classified 

under E.O. 13526, as implemented by 

DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(ii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). 

(iii) Reasons: From subsection 5 

U.S.C. 552a(d) because granting access 

to information that is properly classified 

pursuant to E.O. 13526, as implemented 

by DoD Manual 5200.01 Volume 1, and 

DoD Instruction 5200.01, may cause 

damage to the national security. 

Dated: August 15, 2018. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17954 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0699; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0165; FRL–9982–31-Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Attainment 

Plan for the Lake County SO2

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision which Ohio submitted to EPA 

on April 3, 2015, and supplemented in 

October 2015 and March 2017, as its 

plan for attaining the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Lake County SO2 nonattainment area. 

This plan (herein called a 

‘‘nonattainment plan’’) includes Ohio’s 

attainment demonstration, enforceable 

emission limitations and control 

measures, and other elements required 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA 

proposes to conclude that Ohio has 

appropriately demonstrated that the 

nonattainment plan provides for 

attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary 

SO2 NAAQS in Lake County by the 

applicable attainment date and that the 

plan meets the other applicable 

requirements under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0699 (nonattainment SIP) or 

EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165 (SO2 rule 

revisions) at http://www.regulations.gov, 

or via email to Blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, 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. 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, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Portanova, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5954, 

portanova.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ’’our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. The docket number EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0699 refers to Ohio’s 

nonattainment SIP submittal of April 3, 

2015, supplemented on October 13, 

2015. This state submittal addressed 

Ohio’s Lake County, Muskingum River, 

and Steubenville OH–WV SO2

nonattainment areas. The docket 

number EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0165 

refers to Ohio’s OAC 3745–18 SO2 rules 

SIP submittal of March 13, 2017. EPA is 

proposing action on only the Lake 

County portion of Ohio’s nonattainment 

SIP submittal and the portions of OAC 

3745–18 that are specifically pertinent 

to Ohio’s Lake County nonattainment 

SIP at this time. The Muskingum River 

and Steubenville portions of the 

nonattainment SIP and the remainder of 

the OAC 3745–18 rule revisions will be 

addressed in subsequent rulemaking 

actions. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information regarding 

EPA’s proposed action on Ohio’s Lake 

County SO2 nonattainment plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. Why was Ohio required to submit an SO2

plan for the Lake County area? 

II. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment Area 

Plans 

III. Attainment Demonstration and LongerTerm Averaging 

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan 

A. Model Selection and General Model 

Inputs 

B. Meteorological Data 

C. Modeled Emissions Data 

D. Emission Limits 

1. Enforceability 

2. Longer-Term Average Limits 

E. Background Concentrations 

F. Summary of Results 

V. Review of Other Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

and Technology 

C. New Source Review 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

E. Contingency Measures 

VI. Ohio’s SIP Rules 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why was Ohio required to submit an 

SO2 plan for the Lake County area? 

On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of the daily maximum 1- 

hour average concentrations does not 

exceed 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 

CFR 50.17(a)–(b). The 3-year average of 

the annual 99th percentile of daily 

maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations is called the air quality 

monitor’s SO2 ‘‘design value.’’ For the 3- 

year period 2009–2011, the design value 

at the SO2 monitor in Painesville, Lake 

County (39–085–0007) was 157 ppb, 

which is a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. 

Lake County’s SO2 designation was 

based upon the monitored design value 

at this location for this three-year 

period. (Lake County’s other SO2

monitor, located in Eastlake, Ohio (39– 

085–0003), had a 2009–2011 design 

value of 33 ppb, which is not a 

violation.) On August 5, 2013, EPA 

designated a first set of 29 areas of the 

country as nonattainment for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, including the Lake County 

nonattainment area. See 78 FR 47191, 

codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 

These area designations were effective 

on October 4, 2013. Section 191(a) of the 

CAA directs states to submit SIPs for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42236 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1For a number of areas, EPA published notice on 

March 18, 2016, that the pertinent states had failed 

to submit the required SO2 nonattainment plan by 

this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. However, 

because Ohio had submitted its SO2 nonattainment 

plan before that date, EPA did not make such a 

finding with respect to Ohio’s submittal for Lake 

County. 

2See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=

EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0138-0001. The Lemont and 

Pekin area action was finalized on February 1, 2018 

(83 FR 4591). 

areas designated as nonattainment for 

the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 

months of the effective date of the 

designation; in this case, by no later 

than April 4, 2015. These SIPs are 

required by CAA section 192(a) to 

demonstrate that their respective areas 

will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than 5 years 

from the effective date of designation. 

The SO2 attainment deadline for Lake 

County is October 4, 2018. 

In response to the requirement for SO2

nonattainment plan submittals, Ohio 

submitted a nonattainment plan for the 

Lake County nonattainment area on 

April 3, 2015,1 and supplemented it on 

October 13, 2015, and on March 13, 

2017. The remainder of this document 

describes the requirements that such 

plans must meet in order to obtain EPA 

approval, provides a review of the 

state’s plan with respect to these 

requirements, and describes EPA’s 

proposed action on the plan. 

II. Requirements for SO2

Nonattainment Area Plans 

Nonattainment SIPs must meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA, 

and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 

191 and 192. EPA’s regulations 

governing nonattainment SIPs are set 

forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific 

procedural requirements and control 

strategy requirements residing at 

subparts F and G, respectively. Soon 

after Congress enacted the 1990 

Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued 

comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a 

document entitled the ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). 

Among other things, the General 

Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and 

fundamental principles for SIP control 

strategies. Id., at 13545–13549, 13567– 

13568. 

On April 23, 2014, EPA issued 

recommended guidance for meeting the 

statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs, in a 

document entitled, ‘‘Guidance for 1- 

Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 

Submissions,’’ available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_

nonattainment_sip.pdf. In this 

guidance, referred to in this document 

as the April 2014 SO2 guidance, EPA 

described the statutory requirements for 

a complete nonattainment area SIP, 

which includes an accurate emissions 

inventory of current emissions for all 

sources of SO2 within the 

nonattainment area; an attainment 

demonstration; a demonstration of 

reasonable further progress (RFP); 

implementation of reasonably available 

control measures (RACM); enforceable 

emission limitations and control 

measures; new source review (NSR); 

and adequate contingency measures for 

the affected area. A synopsis of these 

requirements can be found in the 

proposed rulemaking for the Lemont 

and Pekin, Illinois, SO2 nonattainment 

plans, which was published on October 

5, 2017 at 82 FR 46434.2

In order for EPA to fully approve a 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 110, 172 and 191–192 and 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the 

SIP for the affected area needs to 

demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that 

each of the applicable requirements 

have been met. Under CAA sections 

110(l) and 193, EPA may not approve a 

SIP that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any 

other applicable requirement, and no 

requirement in effect (or required to be 

adopted by an order, settlement, 

agreement, or plan in effect before 

November 15, 1990) in any area which 

is a nonattainment area for any air 

pollutant, may be modified in any 

manner unless it insures equivalent or 

greater emission reductions of such air 

pollutant. 

III. Attainment Demonstration and 

Longer-Term Averaging 

CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states 

with areas designated as nonattainment 

to demonstrate that the submitted plan 

provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 

The regulations at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart G, further delineate the control 

strategy requirements that SIPs must 

meet. EPA has long required that all 

SIPs and control strategies reflect four 

fundamental principles of 

quantification, enforceability, 

replicability, and accountability. 

General Preamble, at 13567–13568. SO2

attainment plans must consist of two 

components: (1) Emission limits and 

other control measures that assure 

implementation of permanent, 

enforceable and necessary emission 

controls, and (2) a modeling analysis 

which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix W, which 

demonstrates that these emission limits 

and control measures provide for timely 

attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS 

as expeditiously as practicable, but by 

no later than the attainment date for the 

affected area. 

In all cases, the emission limits and 

control measures must be accompanied 

by appropriate methods and conditions 

to determine compliance with the 

respective emission limits and control 

measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., 

a specific amount of emission reduction 

can be ascribed to the measures), fully 

enforceable (specifying clear, 

unambiguous and measurable 

requirements for which compliance can 

be practicably determined), replicable 

(the procedures for determining 

compliance are sufficiently specific and 

non-subjective so that two independent 

entities applying the procedures would 

obtain the same result), and accountable 

(source specific limits must be 

permanent and must reflect the 

assumptions used in the SIP 

demonstrations). 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance 

recommends that emission limits be 

expressed as short-term average limits 

(e.g., addressing emissions averaged 

over one or three hours), but also 

describes an option to utilize emission 

limits with longer averaging times of up 

to 30 days so long as the state meets 

various suggested criteria. See 2014 SO2

guidance, pp. 22 to 39. Should states 

and sources utilize longer averaging 

times, the guidance recommends that 

the longer-term average limit be set at an 

adjusted level that reflects a stringency 

comparable to the 1-hour average limit 

that the plan otherwise would have set 

at the critical emission value shown to 

provide for attainment. 

The April 2014 SO2 guidance 

provides an extensive discussion of 

EPA’s rationale for concluding that 

appropriately set, comparably stringent 

limitations based on averaging times as 

long as 30 days can be found to provide 

for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In evaluating this option, EPA 

considered the nature of the standard, 

conducted detailed analyses of the 

impact of use of 30-day average limits 

on the prospects for attaining the 

standard, and carefully reviewed how 

best to achieve an appropriate balance 

among the various factors that warrant 

consideration in judging whether a 

state’s plan provides for attainment. Id. 

at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at 

appendices B, C, and D. 

EPA considered that the 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS, as specified in 40 

CFR 50.17(b), is met at an ambient air 

quality monitoring site when the 3-year 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42237 

3An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with 

average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T 

provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile 

daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the fourth 

highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a 

year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion 

and an example below uses a single ‘‘average year’’ 

in order to simplify the illustration of relevant 

principles. 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

75 ppb. In a year with 365 days of valid 

monitoring data, the 99th percentile 

would be the fourth highest daily 

maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2

NAAQS, including this form of 

determining compliance with the 

standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in Nat’l Envt’l Dev. Ass’n’s Clean 

Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this 

form, a single exceedance does not 

create a violation of the standard. 

Therefore, an emission limit which 

allows some operational flexibility or 

emission variability may still be 

protective of the standard. 

At issue is whether a source operating 

in compliance with a properly set 

longer-term average could cause 

exceedances, and if so, what are the 

resulting frequency and magnitude of 

such exceedances. Specifically, EPA 

must determine with reasonable 

confidence whether a properly set 

longer-term average limit will provide 

that the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour 

value will be at or below 75 ppb. A 

synopsis of EPA’s review of how to 

judge whether such plans provide for 

attainment in light of the NAAQS’ form, 

based on modeling of projected 

allowable emissions for determining 

attainment at monitoring sites, is given 

below. 

For plans for SO2 based on 1-hour 

emission limits, the standard approach 

is to conduct modeling using fixed 

emission rates. The maximum emission 

rate that would be modeled to result in 

attainment (i.e., in an ‘‘average year’’ 3

shows three, not four days with 

maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 

ppb) is labeled the ‘‘critical emission 

value.’’ The modeling process for 

identifying this critical emissions value 

inherently considers the numerous 

variables that affect ambient 

concentrations of SO2, such as 

meteorological data, background 

concentrations, and topography. In the 

standard approach, the state would then 

provide for attainment by setting a 

continuously applicable 1-hour 

emission limit at this critical emission 

value. 

EPA recognizes that some sources 

have highly variable emissions, for 

example due to variations in fuel sulfur 

content and operating rate, that can 

make it extremely difficult, even with a 

well-designed control strategy, to ensure 

in practice that emissions for any given 

hour do not exceed the critical emission 

value. EPA also acknowledges the 

concern that longer-term emission limits 

can allow short periods with emissions 

above the ‘‘critical emissions value,’’ 

which, if coincident with 

meteorological conditions conducive to 

high SO2 concentrations, could in turn 

create the possibility of a NAAQS 

exceedance occurring on a day when an 

exceedance would not have occurred if 

emissions were continuously controlled 

at the level corresponding to the critical 

emission value. However, for several 

reasons, EPA believes that the approach 

recommended in its guidance document 

suitably addresses this concern. 

First, from a practical perspective, 

EPA expects the actual emission profile 

of a source subject to an appropriately 

set longer-term average limit to be 

similar to the emission profile of a 

source subject to an analogous 1-hour 

average limit. EPA expects this 

similarity because it has recommended 

that the longer-term average limit be set 

at a level that is comparably stringent to 

the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit 

(reflecting a downward adjustment from 

the critical emissions value) and that 

takes the source’s emissions profile into 

account. As a result, EPA expects either 

form of emission limit to yield 

comparable air quality. 

Second, from a more theoretical 

perspective, EPA has compared the 

likely air quality with a source having 

maximum allowable emissions under an 

appropriately set longer-term limit, as 

compared to the likely air quality with 

the source having maximum allowable 

emissions under the comparable 1-hour 

limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour 

average limit scenario, the source is 

presumed at all times to emit at the 

critical emission level, and in the 

longer-term average limit scenario, the 

source is presumed occasionally to emit 

more than the critical emission value 

but on average, and presumably at most 

times, to emit well below the critical 

emission value. In an ‘‘average year,’’ 

compliance with the 1-hour limit is 

expected to result in three exceedance 

days (i.e., three days with hourly values 

above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a 

maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By 

comparison, with the source complying 

with a longer-term limit, it is possible 

that additional exceedances would 

occur that would not occur in the 1- 

hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed 

the critical emission value at times 

when meteorology is conducive to poor 

air quality). However, this comparison 

must also factor in the likelihood that 

exceedances that would be expected in 

the 1-hour limit scenario would not 

occur in the longer-term limit scenario. 

This result arises because the longerterm limit requires lower emissions 

most of the time (because the limit is set 

well below the critical emission value), 

so a source complying with an 

appropriately set longer-term limit is 

likely to have lower emissions at critical 

times than would be the case if the 

source were emitting as allowed with a 

1-hour limit. 

As a hypothetical example to 

illustrate these points, suppose there is 

a source that always emits 1000 pounds 

of SO2 per hour (lb/hr), and thereby 

maintains air quality at the level of the 

NAAQS (i.e., a calculated design value 

of 75 ppb). Air quality depends on both 

emissions and meteorological 

conditions. In an ‘‘average year,’’ with 

typically varying meteorological 

conditions, the steady 1000 lb/hr 

emissions will lead to slightly different 

daily average 1-hour concentrations. 

Suppose that the five highest maximum 

daily average 1-hour concentrations in 

that average year are 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 

80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. With the 

fourth value at 75 ppb, the NAAQS is 

met. (In this simplified example, we 

assume a zero background 

concentration, which allows one to 

assume a linear relationship between 

emissions and air quality. A nonzero 

background concentration would make 

the mathematics more difficult but 

would give similar results.) Now, 

suppose that the source is subject to a 

30-day average emission limit of 700 lb/ 

hr. It is theoretically possible for a 

source meeting this limit to have 

emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 

lb/hr, but with a typical emissions 

profile emissions would much more 

commonly be between 600 and 800 lb/ 

hr. Suppose for example that the 

emissions on those same five days were 

800 lb/hr, 1100 lb/hr, 500 lb/hr, 900 lb/ 

hr, and 1200 lb/hr, respectively. (This is 

a conservative example because the 

average of these emissions, 900 lb/hr, is 

well over the 30-day average emission 

limit.) Based on the previous ratio of 

concentrations to emissions on each day 

(representing the influence of 

meteorology), the new emission rates 

would be expected to result in daily 

maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 

ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 

ppb. In this example, the fifth day 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42238 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4For example, if the critical emission value is 

1000 lb/hr of SO2, and a suitable adjustment factor 

is determined to be 70 percent, the recommended 

longer-term average limit would be 700 lb/hr. 

5EPA published revisions to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models on January 17, 2017. 

would have an exceedance that would 

not otherwise have occurred, but the 

third day would not have an exceedance 

that otherwise would have occurred, 

and the fourth day would have been 

below, rather than at, 75 ppb. The fourth 

highest daily maximum concentration 

under this 30-day average example 

would be 67.5 ppb. This example serves 

to show that the net effect of allowing 

some limited emission variability is that 

a longer-term limit can still provide for 

attainment. 

This simplified example illustrates 

the findings of a more complicated 

statistical analysis that EPA conducted 

using a range of scenarios using actual 

plant data. As described in appendix B 

of EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance, EPA 

found that the requirement for lower 

average emissions is highly likely to 

yield better air quality than is required 

with a comparably stringent 1-hour 

limit. Based on analyses described in 

appendix B of its April 2014 SO2

guidance, EPA expects that an emission 

profile with maximum allowable 

emissions under an appropriately set 

comparably stringent 30-day average 

limit is likely to have the net effect of 

having a lower number of exceedances 

and better air quality than an emission 

profile with maximum allowable 

emissions under a 1-hour emission limit 

at the critical emission value. This 

result provides a compelling policy 

rationale for allowing the use of a longer 

averaging period in appropriate 

circumstances where the facts indicate 

that a result of this type might occur. 

The question then becomes whether 

this approach—which is likely to 

produce a lower number of overall 

exceedances even though it may 

produce some unexpected exceedances 

above the critical emission value— 

meets the requirements in sections 

110(a)(1), 172(c)(1), 172(c)(6), and 192(a) 

for emission limitations in state 

implementation plans to ‘‘provide for 

attainment’’ of the NAAQS. For SO2, as 

for other pollutants, it is generally 

impossible to design a nonattainment 

plan in the present that will guarantee 

that attainment will occur in the future. 

A variety of factors can cause a welldesigned plan to fail and unexpectedly 

not result in attainment, for example if 

meteorological conditions occur that are 

more conducive to poor air quality than 

was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, 

in determining whether a plan meets the 

requirement to provide for attainment, 

EPA’s task is commonly to judge not 

whether the plan provides absolute 

certainty that attainment will in fact 

occur, but rather whether the plan 

provides an adequate level of 

confidence of prospective NAAQS 

attainment. From this perspective, in 

evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, 

EPA must weigh the likely net effect on 

air quality. Such an evaluation must 

consider the risk that occasions with 

meteorological conditions conducive to 

high concentrations will have elevated 

emissions leading to exceedances that 

would not otherwise have occurred, and 

must also weigh the likelihood that the 

requirement for lower emissions on 

average will result in days not having 

exceedances that would have been 

expected with emissions at the critical 

emissions value. 

Additional policy considerations, 

such as in this case the desirability of 

accommodating real world emissions 

variability without significant risk of 

violations, are also appropriate factors 

for EPA to weigh in judging whether a 

plan provides a reasonable degree of 

confidence that the plan will lead to 

attainment. Based on these 

considerations, especially given the 

high likelihood that a continuously 

enforceable limit averaged over as long 

as 30 days, determined in accordance 

with EPA’s guidance, will result in 

attainment, EPA believes as a general 

matter that such limits, if appropriately 

determined, can reasonably be 

considered to provide for attainment of 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The April 2014 SO2 guidance offers 

specific recommendations for 

determining an appropriate longer-term 

average limit. The recommended 

method starts with determination of the 

1-hour emission limit that would 

provide for attainment (i.e., the critical 

emission value), and applies an 

adjustment factor to determine the 

(lower) level of the longer-term average 

emission limit that would be estimated 

to have a stringency comparable to the 

otherwise necessary 1-hour emission 

limit. This method uses a database of 

continuous emission data reflecting the 

type of control that the source will be 

using to comply with the SIP emission 

limits, which (if compliance requires 

new controls) may require use of an 

emission database from another source. 

The recommended method involves 

using these data to compute a complete 

set of emission averages, computed 

according to the averaging time and 

averaging procedures of the prospective 

emission limitation. In this 

recommended method, the ratio of the 

99th percentile among these long-term 

averages to the 99th percentile of the 1- 

hour values represents an adjustment 

factor that may be multiplied by the 

candidate 1-hour emission limit to 

determine a longer-term average 

emission limit that may be considered 

comparably stringent.4

The guidance also addresses a variety 

of related topics, such as the potential 

utility of setting supplemental emission 

limits, such as mass-based limits, to 

reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude 

of elevated emission levels that might 

occur under the longer-term emission 

rate limit. 

EPA anticipates that most modeling 

used to develop long-term average 

emission limits and to prepare full 

attainment demonstrations will be 

performed using one of EPA’s preferred 

air quality models. Preferred air quality 

models for use in regulatory 

applications are described in appendix 

A of EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality 

Models (40 CFR part 51, appendix W).5

In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as 

the Agency’s preferred near-field 

dispersion modeling for a wide range of 

regulatory applications addressing 

stationary sources (for example in 

estimating SO2 concentrations) in all 

types of terrain based on extensive 

developmental and performance 

evaluation. Supplemental guidance on 

modeling for purposes of demonstrating 

attainment of the SO2 standard is 

provided in appendix A to the April 23, 

2014 SO2 nonattainment area SIP 

guidance document referenced above. 

Appendix A provides extensive 

guidance on the modeling domain, the 

source inputs, assorted types of 

meteorological data, and background 

concentrations. Consistency with the 

recommendations in this guidance is 

generally necessary for the attainment 

demonstration to offer adequately 

reliable assurance that the plan provides 

for attainment. 

As stated previously, attainment 

demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate 

future attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS in the entire area 

designated as nonattainment (i.e., not 

just at the violating monitor) by using 

air quality dispersion modeling (see 

appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show 

that the mix of sources and enforceable 

control measures and emission rates in 

an identified area will not lead to a 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a 

short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA 

believes that dispersion modeling, using 

allowable emissions and addressing 

stationary sources in the affected area 

(and in some cases those sources located 

outside the nonattainment area which 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42239 

6 In early 2017, EPA identified an issue in version 

15181 of AERMOD, which affected the adjusted 

surface friction velocity (ADJ_U*) parameter used 

in AERMET (AERMOD’s meteorological data 

preprocessor). The problem was corrected in 

AERMOD version 16216r, which was released on 

January 17, 2017. The issue affecting ADJ_U* was 

not present in AERMOD version 14134, and Ohio 

did not use the ADJ_U* option in the Lake County 

modeling, as it was a non-default option at the time. 

Therefore, the results of the Lake County modeling 

are unaffected by this issue. 

may affect attainment in the area) is 

technically appropriate, efficient and 

effective in demonstrating attainment in 

nonattainment areas because it takes 

into consideration combinations of 

meteorological and emission source 

operating conditions that may 

contribute to peak ground-level 

concentrations of SO2. 

The meteorological data used in the 

analysis should generally be processed 

with the most recent version of 

AERMET. Estimated concentrations 

should include ambient background 

concentrations, should follow the form 

of the standard, and should be 

calculated as described in section 

2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 

clarification memo on ‘‘Applicability of 

appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 

1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (EPA, 2010). 

IV. Review of Modeled Attainment Plan 

As part of its SIP development 

process, Ohio used EPA’s regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, to help 

determine the SO2 emission limit 

revisions that would be needed to bring 

Lake County into attainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. Ohio evaluated the three 

highest-emitting facilities in Lake 

County, which together made up 98 

percent of Lake County’s 2011 SO2

emissions. Ohio’s analyses determined 

that a reduction in allowable emissions 

at two facilities would provide for 

attainment in Lake County. The 

following paragraphs evaluate various 

features of the modeling analysis that 

Ohio performed for its attainment 

demonstration. 

A. Model Selection and General Model 

Inputs 

For the Lake County SIP attainment 

demonstration, Ohio used the AERMOD 

model, version 14134. AERMOD is 

EPA’s preferred model for this 

application, and version 14134 was the 

current, appropriate model version 

when the modeling was performed. 

Occasionally, EPA releases updates to 

the model between the time that a state 

completes its modeling analysis and the 

time that EPA acts on the state’s 

submittal. 

If the state’s modeling was properly 

performed using an appropriate model 

version and submitted as expeditiously 

as practicable, EPA considers that 

model version acceptable, as long as the 

newer model version available at the 

time of EPA’s review does not contain 

revisions or error corrections that are 

expected to significantly damage the 

credibility of the older modeled results. 

The more recently released versions of 

AERMOD, 15181 (2015), 16216r (2017), 

and 18081 (2018), provided revisions to 

the model which EPA does not expect 

to have a significant effect on the 

modeled results for the analysis that 

Ohio performed for Lake County.6

Therefore, EPA accepts AERMOD 

version 14134 for Ohio’s submitted 

analysis. 

Ohio ran the AERMOD model in 

regulatory default mode, with rural 

dispersion coefficients. Ohio performed 

a land use analysis which considered 

land use within a 3 kilometer (km) 

radius of each facility, using National 

Land Cover Database data from 1992 

and 2011. Ohio considered the urban 

and rural land use percentages both 

with and without the portion of Lake 

Erie within the 3 km radius. In both 

cases, the land use analyses indicated 

that running the AERMOD model in 

rural mode was appropriate. 

The state used a set of nested grids of 

receptors centered on the modeled Lake 

County facilities. The analysis included 

a total of 14,680 receptors. Receptors 

were placed every 50 meters (m) within 

1 km of the three facilities, then every 

100 m to 2.5 km, and every 250 m out 

to a 5 km distance from the facilities. 

Between 5 and 10 km, a 500-m receptor 

spacing was used, and beyond 10 km 

from the facilities, receptors were 

placed every 1000 m. Ohio placed 

receptors along the fenceline of these 

three facilities, and did not place 

receptors within plant property where 

public access is precluded. EPA requires 

assessing whether violations within 

plant property may be occurring as the 

result of emissions from other plants in 

the area. As discussed below in Section 

IV.F, EPA believes that Ohio’s 

submitted modeling results, based on 

modeling without receptors on plant 

property, are adequate to demonstrate 

that no such violations are occurring. 

Ohio used the AERMAP terrain 

preprocessor, version 11103, with USGS 

Digital Elevation Data to include terrain 

heights at the receptor locations. EPA 

finds the model selection and these 

modeling options appropriate. 

B. Meteorological Data 

Ohio used five years (2008–2012) of 

National Weather Service 

meteorological data from Cleveland 

Hopkins International Airport (Station 

14820) with upper air data from Buffalo 

Niagara International Airport (Station 

14733). This data was processed with 

AERMINUTE version 14237 and 

AERMET version 14134. Cleveland 

Hopkins International Airport is located 

at the southwestern edge of the city of 

Cleveland, in Cuyahoga County, 

approximately 45–60 km southwest of 

the Lake County power plants. Lake 

County borders Cuyahoga County to the 

northeast. The Cleveland surface data 

adequately represents the typical 

prevailing winds in Lake County, the 

influences of generally similar 

topography, and the meteorological 

influence from nearby Lake Erie. 

The upper air station in Buffalo, New 

York, is also considered to be 

representative of Lake County, Ohio. 

The Buffalo upper air station is about 

250 km from Painesville, but it is 

located at the eastern end of Lake Erie 

and south of Lake Ontario, so it is likely 

to experience upper air meteorological 

conditions similar to those affecting the 

Lake County SO2 sources near Lake Erie. 

EPA concurs with the choice of these 

meteorological data sets. 

Ohio used AERSURFACE version 

13016 to determine the AERMOD 

surface characteristics of albedo, Bowen 

ratio, and roughness length, which were 

then input into AERMOD. Ohio used 

National Land Cover Database data from 

1992, twelve sectors, and four seasons, 

including moisture conditions at the 

surface meteorological station which 

were determined from 30-year 

precipitation data. EPA finds that this 

procedure for preparing the input values 

for AERMOD surface characteristics is 

acceptable. 

C. Modeled Emissions Data 

Ohio considered three significant 

facilities in Lake County for inclusion in 

the Lake County analysis and 

attainment demonstration: The 

FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, Eastlake 

Plant (Eastlake plant), the Painesville 

Municipal Electric Plant (Painesville 

plant), and Carmeuse Lime Grand River 

Operations (Carmeuse Lime). These 

three facilities were responsible for 98 

percent of Lake County’s total SO2

emissions (based on 2011 actual 

emissions data). The Eastlake plant 

emitted 48,303 tons of SO2 per year 

(tpy), the Painesville plant emitted 

2,745 tpy, and Carmeuse Lime emitted 

891 tpy. The other SO2 sources in Lake 

County each emitted less than 25 tpy in 

2011, and were not considered likely to 

have significant concentration gradients 

in the area of analysis. The large sources 

in nearby counties outside Lake County, 

all of which emitted less than the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42240 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Painesville plant did in 2011, were 

located more than 35 km from the Lake 

County monitor which had indicated 

violation. Therefore, these sources were 

considered unlikely to create significant 

concentration gradients in the 

nonattainment area. In accordance with 

EPA recommendations and regulations 

at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 

8.3, Ohio used a background 

concentration to account for the 

contributions of sources not included in 

the modeling analysis. See section IV.E 

for more discussion of Ohio’s 

determination of background 

concentrations. EPA concurs with 

Ohio’s selection of the sources to 

include in its attainment demonstration. 

The Eastlake plant had five large 

boilers, but at the time of Ohio’s 

analysis, two of those boilers had been 

retired and were no longer emitting SO2. 

Therefore, Ohio’s modeling analysis 

included only the three large boilers 

which were still operating. Ohio 

determined that the SO2 emission rates 

for each of the three boilers must be 

reduced from 7,473 lb/hr to 1,158.89 lb/ 

hr in order to attain the NAAQS. 

Although FirstEnergy Generation, LLC 

later informed Ohio that all of the 

Eastlake plant’s large boilers would be 

shut down as of April 16, 2015, Ohio 

did not revise its modeled attainment 

demonstration to reflect the shutdown 

of boilers B001, B002, and B003. 

Therefore, the final modeled attainment 

demonstration Ohio submitted for Lake 

County includes modeled emissions of 

1,158.89 lb/hr from the Eastlake plant’s 

boilers B001, B002, and B003. After 

receiving the formal notification that the 

remaining three large boilers at the 

Eastlake plant had been retired and 

would no longer emit SO2, Ohio did, 

however, revise Eastlake’s permit to 

remove references to the retired boilers, 

and Ohio also removed the emission 

limit SIP rule entry for the Eastlake 

plant at OAC 3745–18–49(G), as the five 

boiler units previously subject to the 

rule had all been shut down. 

The second facility in Lake County 

which Ohio included in its attainment 

strategy was the Painesville plant. This 

facility has three boilers (numbered 3, 4 

and 5). Boilers 3 and 4 exhaust from a 

single stack, 52 m tall. Boiler 5 exhausts 

from a separate stack, 47 m tall. Ohio’s 

modeling analyses indicated that 

reductions in the Painesville plant’s SO2

emissions would also be necessary to 

attain the NAAQS. Ohio determined 

that attainment would be provided with 

an hourly emission limit of 362.997 lb/ 

hr at Boiler 5, an hourly limit of 430.499 

lb/hr for Boilers 3 and 4, and an 

additional restriction that only one of 

the three boilers could run on coal at 

any time. The Lake County final 

cumulative attainment modeling 

analyses were performed using the 

hourly emission values above. 

The third facility, Carmeuse Lime, 

was included in the final cumulative 

attainment modeling analysis with 

emissions of 230 lb/hr at Lime kiln #4 

and 260 lb/hr at Lime kiln #5. These 

emission rates represent Carmeuse 

Lime’s permitted emission rates. Since 

it was not necessary, Ohio did not revise 

Carmeuse Lime’s emission limits as part 

of its Lake County nonattainment SIP. 

D. Emission Limits 

An important prerequisite for 

approval of a nonattainment plan is that 

the emission limits that provide for 

attainment be quantifiable, fully 

enforceable, replicable, and 

accountable. See General Preamble at 

13567–68. Because some of the limits 

that Ohio’s plan relies on are expressed 

as 30-day average limits, part of the 

review of Ohio’s nonattainment plan 

must address the use of these limits, 

both with respect to the general 

suitability of using such limits for this 

purpose and with respect to whether the 

particular limits included in the plan 

have been suitably demonstrated to 

provide for attainment. The first 

subsection that follows addresses the 

overall enforceability of all of the 

emission limits in Ohio’s plan, and the 

second subsection that follows 

addresses the 30-day limits. 

1. Enforceability 

Ohio’s nonattainment plan for Lake 

County relies on revised emission limits 

for the Painesville plant, existing SO2

emission limits for Carmeuse Lime, and 

modeled emission reductions at the 

Eastlake plant which have been 

supplanted by the permanent emission 

reductions which resulted from the 

Eastlake plant’s boiler retirements. The 

emission limits for Lake County are 

codified at OAC 3745–18–49. Ohio’s 

compliance time schedules and 

emission measurement methods are 

located in OAC 3745–18–03 and OAC 

3745–18–04, respectively. These rules 

were included in Ohio’s SIP submittals. 

Ohio’s revised SIP rules were properly 

adopted by the state and will provide 

for permanent Federal enforceability 

after EPA approves them into the Ohio 

SO2 SIP. 

As of April 2015, none of the Eastlake 

plant’s five large boilers operate or emit 

SO2. Ohio has removed these units from 

the Eastlake plant’s permit. Ohio also 

removed the Eastlake plant’s previous 

entry at OAC 3745–18–49 (G) from the 

SO2 rule for Lake County, OAC 3745– 

18–49. This facility is no longer 

authorized to operate its former large 

boilers, and cannot reinstate them 

without obtaining a new permit under 

Ohio’s New Source Review program. 

Therefore, EPA finds that the reductions 

in SO2 emissions from the boiler 

closures can be considered permanent, 

enforceable reductions. 

For the Painesville plant, Ohio placed 

new 30-day and 24-hour emission limits 

in OAC 3745–18–49(F), effective on 

October 23, 2015, and submitted its SIP 

rule package to EPA. In accordance with 

EPA policy, the 30-day average limit is 

set at a lower level than the hourly 

emission rate used in the modeled 

attainment demonstration; the 

relationship between these two values is 

discussed in more detail in the 

following section. 

In its initial review, EPA identified an 

issue with the Painesville plant’s limits 

and their associated compliance 

requirements as given in Ohio’s October 

2015 submittal. The method stated in 

Ohio’s rule OAC 3745–18–04 (D)(10) for 

calculating compliance with the 

Painesville plant’s 30-day emission 

limits in OAC 3745–18–49 (F) could 

have been interpreted to allow a boiler’s 

non-operating hours to be included in 

its 30-day average heat input 

calculation. Since OAC 3745–18–49 (F) 

also requires that the Painesville plant’s 

boilers must not operate 

simultaneously, the three boilers may 

each have a number of non-operating 

hours in any given 30-day period. 

Allowing multiple hours of zero heat 

input to be averaged into the 30-day 

compliance calculations could have had 

the effect of allowing the boilers to 

operate frequently at heat input rates 

well in excess of the limit which was 

developed as an equivalent to the shortterm limit required for attainment. On 

February 6, 2017, Ohio revised OAC 

3745–18–04 (D)(10) to clarify the heat 

input averaging procedure, that 

compliance shall be determined by 

averaging heat input values only while 

the boiler operates. 

EPA finds that this revised approach 

provides acceptable confidence that, 

consistent with EPA’s policy on longerterm average limits, occasions with 

emissions above the otherwise 

applicable 1-hour limit will be 

infrequent and of moderate magnitude. 

As discussed further below, with these 

revisions, EPA finds that the revised 

rule assures that the Painesville plant’s 

30-day emission limits now 

appropriately correspond to the 1-hour 

emission limits Ohio demonstrated to be 

protective of the NAAQS. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to conclude that the 

revised rules for the Painesville plant 

are acceptable. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42241 

7 Information about the boiler MACT is available 

at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/boiler-maximum-achievable-controltechnology-mact-40-cfr-part-63. 

2. Longer-Term Average Limits 

Ohio’s revised SIP includes emission 

limits for the Painesville plant which 

require compliance based on a thirtyoperating-day average of one-hour 

emission rates. This longer-term 

averaged limit provides operating 

flexibility for the facility while 

continuing to maintain the NAAQS. The 

30-day SO2 limits are 340 lb/hr each for 

Boilers 3 and 4 and 287 lb/hr for Boiler 

5. These limits are numerically more 

stringent than the modeled 1-hour 

emission rates which were 

demonstrated to provide for attainment. 

The increased stringency is intended to 

account for potential fluctuations in 

hourly emissions which may occur 

while the facility remains in compliance 

with its limits over the longer averaging 

time. Ohio also included a 

supplemental short-term (24-hour) limit 

on the facility’s overall boiler operating 

rates of 249 million British Thermal 

Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) in any 

calendar day. EPA finds that this 

supplemental limit acts to reduce the 

occurrence of high, short-lived SO2

emission events and thereby provides 

additional assurance that this set of 

limits will provide for attainment in this 

area. 

Ohio calculated the Painesville 

plant’s 30-day emission limits in 

accordance with EPA’s recommended 

method. See section III. Ohio used 

dispersion modeling to determine a 1- 

hour critical emission value for each 

boiler which would provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. These critical 

1-hour values necessary for modeled 

attainment were 430.499 for Boilers 3 

and 4 and 362.997 lb/hr at Boiler 5. 

Ohio then applied an adjustment factor 

to determine the (lower) level of the 

longer-term average emission limit that 

would be estimated to have a stringency 

comparable to the critical 1-hour 

emission value. Ohio was not able to 

calculate a source-specific adjustment 

factor for the Painesville plant, due to 

the facility’s expected operations. The 

Painesville plant has accepted 

enforceable operating limits which will 

meet the Federal Boiler Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) 7 Limited Use definition. Under 

this enforceable restriction to a 10 

percent annual operating capacity 

factor, which Ohio has codified at OAC 

3745–18–49 (F)(7), the facility will only 

operate intermittently, during periods of 

high demand or interrupted service. 

Hourly SO2 emissions data representing 

these intermittent operations were not 

available for use in calculating a sourcespecific emission ratio. Instead, Ohio 

used the national average ratio of 0.79 

for sources with no control equipment, 

which is given in Table 1 of appendix 

D of EPA’s guidance. The Painesville 

plant does not anticipate installing 

additional control technology, as such 

technology often cannot be consistently 

effective for sources which operate 

intermittently rather than continually. 

EPA concurs that the appendix D ratio 

is an acceptable adjustment factor for 

use in calculating a long-term average 

emission limit that is comparably 

stringent to the 1-hour limit at the 

critical emission value that would 

otherwise be set for the Painesville 

plant. Ohio calculated that 

appropriately stringent 30-day SO2

limits would be 340 lb/hr each for 

Boilers 3 and 4 and 287 lb/hr for Boiler 

5. 

After reviewing the state’s 2015 and 

2017 submittals, EPA concurs that the 

30-day-average limits for the Painesville 

plant in OAC 3745–18–49 (F), as 

amended effective February 16, 2017, 

and as supplemented by the 24-hour 

operation level restriction, provide an 

acceptable alternative to establishing a 

1-hour average emission limit for this 

source. The state has used suitable data 

in an appropriate manner and has 

applied an appropriate adjustment, 

yielding an emission limit that has 

comparable stringency to the 1-hour 

average limit that the state determined 

would otherwise have been necessary to 

provide for attainment. While the 30- 

day-average limit can allow occasions in 

which emissions may be higher than the 

level that would be allowed with the 1- 

hour limit, the state’s limit compensates 

by requiring average emissions to be 

lower than the level that would 

otherwise have been required by a 1- 

hour average limit. 

For reasons described above and 

explained in more detail in EPA’s April 

2014 guidance for SO2 nonattainment 

plans, EPA finds that appropriately set 

longer-term average limits provide a 

reasonable basis by which 

nonattainment plans may provide for 

attainment. Based on its review of this 

general information as well as the 

particular information in Ohio’s plan, 

EPA proposes to conclude that the 30- 

day-average limit for the Painesville 

plant, in combination with other 

limitations in the state’s plan, will 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

E. Background Concentrations 

The modeled attainment 

demonstration for a nonattainment area 

specifically includes the maximum 

allowable emissions and the individual 

dispersion characteristics of the most 

significant emission sources in the area. 

To ensure that the demonstration also 

represents the cumulative impacts of 

additional sources which are 

individually too small or too distant to 

be expected to show a significant 

concentration gradient within the 

modeling domain, a background 

concentration is added to the modeled 

results. Data from a nearby air quality 

monitor can be used to determine a 

background value which approximates 

the diffuse impacts of these sources 

within the modeling domain. 

For the Lake County attainment 

demonstration, Ohio used a background 

concentration of 10.3 ppb. This value 

was based on 2008–2012 monitored data 

at the Eastlake monitor (39–085–0003), 

which is located 1 km east of the 

Eastlake plant, 15 km west southwest of 

the Painesville and Carmeuse Lime 

plants, and 8 km northeast of the 

Cuyahoga County/Lake County border. 

This monitor is expected to be 

reasonably representative of SO2

emissions coming into Lake County 

from all directions, including from 

Cuyahoga and Lorain Counties to the 

west, the city of Cleveland, and SO2

emissions from small sources in Lake 

County which were not explicitly 

modeled. This monitor is expected to 

reflect the emissions of the nearby 

Eastlake plant as well. 

Since the Eastlake plant’s emissions 

were specifically input into the model 

for Lake County’s attainment 

demonstration, Ohio selected a 20- 

degree sector for which the monitor’s 

readings are expected to be primarily 

due to the Eastlake plant’s emissions. 

Monitored values measured when 

winds were blowing from this 20-degree 

wind sector were not included in Ohio’s 

determination of a background 

concentration for the Lake County 

analysis. Using the remaining monitored 

data, Ohio calculated that a background 

value of 10.3 ppb would account for the 

significant power plant emission 

reductions which were expected to 

occur in Cuyahoga and Lorain Counties 

over the next few years. Although EPA 

generally recommends against 

projecting future background 

concentrations, the monitoring data that 

have subsequently become available 

indicate that Ohio’s estimates of 

applicable background concentrations 

have proven to be appropriate. EPA 

notes that the most recent years’ 99th 

percentile values measured at the 

Eastlake monitor are 10 ppb for 2016 

and 5 ppb for 2017, which are lower 

than Ohio’s background estimate. 

Therefore, EPA finds that the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42242 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

8Although Ohio’s modeling demonstrates that the 

area would attain even if these units at the Eastlake 

plant had nonzero emissions, the plan should be 

considered to require these units to be shut down, 

and the satisfaction of the RACM/RACT 

requirement is being judged accordingly. 

background concentration value used by 

Ohio is reasonable. 

F. Summary of Results 

Ohio’s attainment modeling analyses 

resulted in a predicted 1-hour design 

value of 196.2 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3), or 74.9 ppb, which is 

below the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb/196.4 

mg/m3. This modeled value, which 

includes the background concentration, 

occurred less than one kilometer from 

the Eastlake plant. The modeled 

analysis shows attainment even 

including the no-longer-allowable 

emissions from the Eastlake plant’s 

three retired boilers, which offers 

additional assurance that the final SIP 

emission limitations in Ohio’s revised 

rule OAC 3745–18–49 are adequate to 

protect the SO2 NAAQS in Lake County. 

EPA policy also requires that one 

facility must not cause or contribute to 

exceedances of the NAAQS on another 

facility’s property. Ohio’s final 

submittal does not specifically address 

the impacts of each modeled facility 

within the plant property boundaries of 

the other modeled facilities, but the 

final modeled results indicate that no 

facility is causing or contributing to 

violations within another facility’s 

property. The maximum impacts from 

each facility alone occurred within a 

kilometer of its own fenceline. The two 

closest facilities, Carmeuse Lime and 

the Painesville plant, are almost 4 km 

from each other. With maximum 

impacts below the NAAQS and 

decreasing with distance, EPA finds 

Ohio’s submitted modeling results to 

provide adequate evidence that no 

facility or combination of facilities is 

causing or contributing to violations on 

another facility’s property. 

EPA concurs with the results of 

Ohio’s analysis and proposes to 

conclude that Ohio has demonstrated 

that its revised emission limits are 

adequate to provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. Review of Other Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

The emissions inventory and source 

emission rate data for an area serve as 

the foundation for air quality modeling 

and other analyses that enable states to: 

(1) Estimate the degree to which 

different sources within a 

nonattainment area contribute to 

violations within the affected area; and 

(2) assess the expected improvement in 

air quality within the nonattainment 

area due to the adoption and 

implementation of control measures. As 

noted above, the state must develop and 

submit to EPA a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of SO2

emissions in each nonattainment area, 

as well as any sources located outside 

the nonattainment area which may 

affect attainment in the area. See CAA 

section 172(c)(3). 

Ohio prepared an emissions inventory 

using 2011 as the base year and 2018, 

the SO2 NAAQS attainment year, as the 

future year. The inventories were 

prepared for six categories: Electrical 

generating units (EGU), non-electrical 

generating units (non-EGU), non-road 

mobile sources, on-road mobile sources, 

area sources, and marine, air and rail 

sources. The 2011 base year inventory 

totaled 52,155.57 tpy for all six 

categories. Reflecting growth and 

known, planned, point source emission 

reductions, the 2018 future year 

inventory projection totaled 3,322.31 

tpy. To maintain conservatism, Ohio did 

not apply a population growth factor to 

the EGU and non-EGU categories, 

although the population in Lake County 

is expected to decline from 2010 to 

2020. 

Emissions from the non-EGU facilities 

which were not required to reduce 

emissions under the Lake County SO2

nonattainment plan were projected to 

remain constant between 2011 and 

2018. The EGU category of this 

emissions inventory only contains the 

Eastlake plant. (The Painesville plant, 

while an electric generating facility, 

does not meet the definition of an EGU, 

and its emissions and projected 

reductions are included in the non-EGU 

category.) The 2011 EGU inventory 

included six emission sources at the 

Eastlake plant (five large boilers and one 

lower-emission turbine), totaling 

48,303.10 tpy. Ohio’s projected 2018 

EGU inventory accounted for the 

closure of two of the Eastlake plant’s 

five large boilers and the emission 

reductions which Ohio’s modeling 

analysis initially indicated would be 

necessary at the Eastlake plant to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS, 

resulting in projected total emissions of 

1,659.53 tpy. Ohio’s submitted 2018 

projected inventory did not account for 

the retirement of the Eastlake plant’s 

remaining three large boilers, which 

occurred in April 2015. This boiler 

retirement would have been expected to 

reduce Ohio’s EGU projection by an 

additional 1657 tpy, and in that case 

Ohio’s total six-category 2018 projected 

year inventory would be 1,665 tpy. 

Ohio’s projected inventory indicates 

that SO2 emissions will be significantly 

and permanently reduced in Lake 

County as of the SO2 NAAQS 

attainment year. EPA concurs and 

proposes to conclude that Ohio has 

satisfied the emissions inventory 

requirement. 

B. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures and Technology 

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to adopt and submit all RACM, 

including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), as needed to attain 

the standards as expeditiously as 

practicable. Section 172(c)(6) requires 

the SIP to contain enforceable emission 

limitations and control measures 

necessary to provide for timely 

attainment of the standard. Ohio’s plan 

for attaining the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

Lake County is based on emission 

reductions at the Eastlake and 

Painesville plants, and Ohio has 

demonstrated that emission limitations 

for these plants will result in attainment 

of the NAAQS. 

While Ohio’s demonstration included 

emission reductions from the Eastlake 

plant, Ohio did not include SO2 limits 

for the Eastlake plant in the final SIP 

rule package, because during Ohio’s 

attainment planning and rulemaking 

process, the Eastlake plant announced 

the retirement of its three remaining 

large boilers, which would reduce the 

plant’s SO2 emissions to below the 

intended limits. The reductions are 

permanent, as the large boilers are no 

longer included in the Eastlake plant’s 

Title V permit. To reinstate them would 

require new source review analysis and 

potentially additional emission controls 

to maintain SO2 attainment in Lake 

County. Therefore, EPA concurs that the 

Eastlake plant’s boiler SO2 emissions are 

currently zero and RACT requirements 

are satisfied at this source.8

Ohio’s plan includes new emission 

limits at the Painesville plant and 

requires timely compliance. Ohio has 

determined that these measures suffice 

to provide for timely attainment. EPA 

concurs and proposes to conclude that 

the state has satisfied the requirements 

in sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) to 

adopt and submit all RACM and 

enforceable limitations and control 

measures as are needed to attain the 

standards as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

C. New Source Review 

Section 172 of the CAA requires the 

state to have an adequate new source 

review program. EPA approved Ohio’s 

nonattainment new source review rules 

on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2909). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 42243 

Ohio’s new source rules, codified at 

OAC 3745–31, provide for appropriate 

new source review for SO2 sources 

undergoing construction or major 

modification in Lake County without 

need for modification of the approved 

rules. EPA concurs and proposes to 

conclude that this requirement has been 

met for this area. 

D. Reasonable Further Progress 

Section 172 of the CAA requires 

Ohio’s Lake County nonattainment SIP 

to provide for reasonable further 

progress toward attainment. For SO2

SIPs, which address a small number of 

affected sources, requiring expeditious 

compliance with attainment emission 

limits can address the RFP requirement. 

EPA finds that the state’s revised limits 

for the Painesville plant and the 2015 

retirement of the Eastlake plant’s boilers 

represent implementation of control 

measures as expeditiously as 

practicable. Accordingly, EPA proposes 

to conclude that Ohio’s plan provides 

for RFP. 

E. Contingency Measures 

Section 172 of the CAA requires that 

nonattainment plans include additional 

measures which will take effect if an 

area fails to meet RFP or fails to attain 

the standard by the attainment date. As 

noted above, EPA guidance describes 

special features of SO2 planning that 

influence the suitability of alternative 

means of addressing the requirement in 

section 172(c)(9) for contingency 

measures for SO2. An appropriate means 

of satisfying this requirement is for the 

state to have a comprehensive 

enforcement program that identifies 

sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS 

and for the state to undertake aggressive 

follow-up for compliance and 

enforcement. Ohio’s plan provides for 

satisfying the contingency measure 

requirement in this manner. EPA 

concurs and proposes to approve Ohio’s 

plan for meeting the contingency 

measure requirement in this manner. 

VI. Ohio’s SIP Rules 

On March 13, 2017, Ohio submitted 

revisions to its rule OAC 3745–18, 

which contains the state’s sulfur dioxide 

emission regulations. This submittal 

consisted of SO2 regulations which 

apply statewide and SO2 regulations 

specific to certain Ohio counties and 

facilities, which include regulations 

pertinent to Ohio’s SO2 nonattainment 

areas. Certain portions of OAC 3745–18 

are specifically pertinent to Ohio’s Lake 

County nonattainment SIP. These are 

OAC 3745–18–03 (B)(9), OAC 3745–18– 

03 (C)(11), OAC 3745–18–04(D)(10), and 

OAC 3745–18–49. EPA finds acceptable 

and proposes to approve these four 

revised rules as part of Ohio’s SO2

nonattainment plan for Lake County. 

The remainder of the OAC 3745–18 rule 

revisions submitted on March 13, 2017, 

will be addressed in a subsequent 

rulemaking action. 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

SIP submission for attaining the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS and for meeting other 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements for the Lake County SO2

nonattainment area. This SO2

nonattainment plan, which the state 

submitted to EPA on April 3, 2015, and 

supplemented on October 13, 2015, and 

on March 13, 2017, includes Ohio’s 

attainment demonstration for the Lake 

County nonattainment area and 

addresses the CAA requirements for 

reasonable further progress, RACM/ 

RACT, base-year and projection-year 

emission inventories, enforceable 

emission limitations and control 

measures, and contingency measures. 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

rules OAC 3745–18–03 (B)(9), OAC 

3745–18–03 (C)(11), OAC 3745–18– 

04(D)(10), and OAC 3745–18–49, which 

became effective on February 16, 2017, 

and were submitted to EPA by Ohio on 

March 13, 2017. 

EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio 

has appropriately demonstrated that the 

plan provisions provide for attainment 

of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS 

in Lake County by the applicable 

attainment date and that the plan meets 

the other applicable requirements of 

sections 110, 172 and 192 of the CAA. 

EPA is therefore proposing to approve 

Ohio’s nonattainment plan for Lake 

County. 

VIII. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

OAC 3745–18–03 (B)(9), OAC 3745–18– 

03 (C)(11), OAC 3745–18–04(D)(10), and 

OAC 3745–18–49, effective on February 

16, 2017. EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
42244 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: August 2, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17930 Filed 8–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 367 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0068] 

RIN 2126–AC12 

Fees for the Unified Carrier 

Registration Plan and Agreement 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes reductions 

in the annual registration fees States 

collect from motor carriers, motor 

private carriers of property, brokers, 

freight forwarders, and leasing 

companies for the Unified Carrier 

Registration (UCR) Plan and Agreement 

for the 2019, 2020, and subsequent 

registration years. The proposed fees for 

the 2019 registration year would be 

reduced below the 2017 registration fee 

level that was in effect by approximately 

17.59 percent to ensure that fee 

revenues do not exceed the statutory 

maximum, and to account for the excess 

funds held in the depository. The 

proposed fees for the 2020 registration 

year would be reduced below the 2017 

level by approximately 9.5 percent. The 

reduction of the current 2019 

registration year fees (finalized on 

January 5, 2018) would range from 

approximately $10 to $9,530 per entity, 

depending on the number of vehicles 

owned or operated by the affected 

entities. The reduction in fees for 

subsequent registration years would 

range from approximately $4 to $3,565 

per entity. 

DATES: Comments on this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) must be 

received on or before August 31, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA– 

2018–0068 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

instructions on submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gerald Folsom, Office of Registration 

and Safety Information, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590–0001 by telephone at 202–385– 

2405. If you have questions on viewing 

or submitting material to the docket, 

contact Docket Services, telephone 202– 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

NPRM is organized as follows: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Not Required 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of the Major 

Provisions 

B. Benefits and Costs 

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

V. Statutory Requirements for the UCR Fees 

A. Legislative History 

B. Fee Requirements 

VI. Background 

VII. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

VIII. International Impacts 

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis 

X. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small 

Entities) 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of 

Information) 

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) 

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) 

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property) 

K. Privacy 

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) 

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Technical Standards) 

P. Environment (NEPA, CAA, 

Environmental Justice) 

Q. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth) 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA–2018– 

0068), indicate the specific section of 

this document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, put the 

docket number, FMCSA–2018–0068, in 

the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

When the new screen appears, click on 

the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type 

your comment into the text box on the 

following screen. Choose whether you 

are submitting your comment as an 

individual or on behalf of a third party 

and then submit. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period and may change this 

proposed rule based on your comments. 

FMCSA may issue a final rule at any 

time after the close of the comment 

period. 

Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 

information that is customarily not 

made available to the general public by 

the submitter. Under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is 

eligible for protection from public 

disclosure. If you have CBI that is 

relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS