[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12666-12741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01064]



[[Page 12665]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 33

February 16, 2024

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Parts 52 and 97





Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 12666]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668; EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402; FRL-
11159-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW09


Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air 
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards and Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements 
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental proposed rule and withdrawal of 
proposed rules.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 
disapprove and partially approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submissions from Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee 
regarding interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action also proposes a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee to address these States' obligations to eliminate 
significant contribution to nonattainment, or interference with 
maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The FIP would 
require fossil fuel-fired power plants in the five states to 
participate in an allowance-based ozone season nitrogen oxides 
emissions trading program beginning in 2025. The Agency is also 
proposing to establish nitrogen oxides emissions limitations applicable 
to certain other industrial stationary sources in Arizona with a 
compliance year no earlier than 2027. Finally, this action also 
includes proposed technical corrections to the regulatory text 
previously promulgated to establish comparable FIP requirements for 
emissions sources in other states.

DATES: 
    Comments: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2024.
    Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on March 
4, 2024. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
additional information on the public hearing.
    Information collection request: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best 
assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
receives a copy of your comments on or before March 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: 
    Comments: You may send comments, identified as Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0402, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402 in 
the subject line of the message.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' 
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Hearing: The virtual hearing will be held at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. The public hearing will convene at 9:00 
a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or 1 hour after the last 
registered speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to 
accommodate all individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A 
lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Refer to the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Uher, Air Quality Policy 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C539-04), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5534; email 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13667b76613d677b7c7e7260537663723d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d2835382f73293532303c2e1d382d3c733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Public participation: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred 
method. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the 
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov 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).
    There are three dockets supporting this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668. All comments 
regarding information in any of these dockets are to be made in Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402.
    The index to the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0402, is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. 
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 
information may not be publicly available due to docket file size 
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

    The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.

2016v1 2016 Version 1 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v2 2016 Version 2 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v3 2016 Version 3 Emissions Modeling Platform
ARP Acid Rain Program
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed Units
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
DAHS Data Acquisition and Handling System
EAV Equivalent Annualized Values
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EHD Environmental Health Department
EIA Economic Impact Assessment
EPA or the Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
g/hp-hr Grams per horsepower per hour
Group 2 allowances CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
allowances
Group 2 trading program CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
Trading Program
Group 3 allowances CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
allowances
Group 3 Trading Program CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
Trading Program
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
LNB Low-NO<INF>X</INF> Burners
MJO Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MW Megawatts
NAA Nonattainment Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System

[[Page 12667]]

NMED New Mexico Environment Department
Non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NO<INF>X</INF> Nitrogen Oxides
NSCR Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction
OMB United States Office of Management and Budget
PBI Proprietary Business Information
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV Present Value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
SC-CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIL Significant Impact Level
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO<INF>2</INF> Sulfur Dioxide
TAS Treatment as State
TDEC Tennessee Department of Environmental Control
TSD Technical Support Document
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Violating-Monitor Receptors Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only 
Receptors
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. Severability
    E. Public Participation
    1. Written Comments
    2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
III. Background
    A. Description of Statutory Background
    B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport 
Regulatory Process
    C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling
    D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the 
2015 Ozone NAAQS
    1. Selection of Analytic Years
    2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    A. SIP Summaries
    1. Arizona
    Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
    2. New Mexico
    a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
    b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
    c. New Mexico Letter
    3. Tennessee
    Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
    B. EPA Evaluation
    1. Arizona
    a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps 
1 and 2
    b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings 
for Arizona
    c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
    d. Conclusion
    2. New Mexico
    a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding 
Step 1
    b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding 
Step 2
    c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings 
for New Mexico
    d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
    e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
    f. Conclusion
    3. Tennessee
    a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding 
Step 1
    b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding 
Step 2
    c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings 
for Tennessee
    d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tenessee Regarding 
Step 3
    e. Conclusion
    C. Proposed SIP Action
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for This Action
    A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP 
Submissions From Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP 
Authority for Iowa and Kansas
    B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or 
Appropriate Finding
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Reduction 
Potential To Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone 
NAAQS
    A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
    B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
    1. EGUs
    2. Non-EGUs
    C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per 
Ton) and Corresponding Emissions Reductions
    1. EGUs
    2. Non-EGUs
    D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NO<INF>X</INF> Reductions, 
and Air Quality
    1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
    2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
    3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
    4. Conclusions
VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation
    A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
    1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected 
Units
    2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
    3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
    4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
    5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025 
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025 
Control Period
    B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
    C. Submitting a SIP
    1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading 
Program
    2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under 
EGU Trading Program
    3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an 
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
    4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
    5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source 
Control Requirements
    D. Title V Permitting
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and 
Outreach
    A. Environmental Justice
    1. EGU Proximity Assessment
    2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
    B. Outreach
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text
    A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's 
Requirements to EGUs in Additional States
    B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's 
Requirements to Non-EGUs in Additional States
    C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously 
Finalized Regulatory Text
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
    2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating 
Units
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
    K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)

I. Executive Summary

    This proposed rule would resolve the interstate transport 
obligations of five states under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
referred to as the

[[Page 12668]]

``good neighbor provision'' or the ``interstate transport provision'' 
of the Act, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 1, 2015, the EPA 
revised the primary and secondary 8-hour standards for ozone to 70 
parts per billion (ppb).\1\ States were required to provide ozone 
infrastructure SIP submissions to fulfill interstate transport 
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to make a finding that interstate transport of 
ozone precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa, 
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of 
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is withdrawing its 
previous proposed actions on SIP submissions from Arizona and 
Tennessee,\2\ proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
good neighbor SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee, 
and to error-correct its prior good neighbor SIP approval actions for 
Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals.\3\ To fulfill the EPA's 
responsibility to ensure that states meet their interstate transport 
obligations as expeditiously as practicable to meet attainment 
deadlines for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA also proposes FIP 
requirements for these five states to prohibit the emissions that 
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. For states 
covered in this action, the EPA proposes to define new ozone season 
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) emissions performance obligations for 
Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sources and to fulfill those obligations 
by implementing an allowance-based ozone season trading program 
beginning in 2025. The EPA is also proposing to establish emissions 
limitations beginning in 2027 for certain other industrial stationary 
sources (referred to generally as ``non-Electric Generating Units'' 
(non-EGUs) in Arizona. Taken together, these strategies will fully 
resolve the covered states' good neighbor obligations for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022). (The EPA's proposed 
approval of Arizona's SIP); and 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022) (The 
EPA's proposed disapproval of Tennessee's SIP).
    \3\ See 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); and 87 FR 19390 
(April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to implement the necessary emissions reductions as 
follows. The proposed FIP requirements establish ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budgets for EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee and require EGUs in these states to participate 
in the revised version of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the 
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule.\4\ For states currently covered 
by the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (i.e., 
Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee), the EPA proposes to amend existing FIPs to 
transition EGU sources in these states from the Group 2 trading program 
to the revised Group 3 trading program, beginning with the 2025 ozone 
season. The EPA proposes to issue new FIPs for Arizona and New Mexico, 
which are not currently covered by any CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> ozone 
season trading program. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA also 
proposes to extend the FIP requirements to apply in Indian country 
located within the geographical boundaries of the states included in 
this proposal, including Indian reservation lands and other areas of 
Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The timeframes for implementation of these emissions-reduction 
strategies are, in the EPA's judgment, as expeditious as practicable 
and aligned to the extent possible with the attainment schedule for 
downwind areas in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed 
in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to find that the 2025 
ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to implement emissions 
reductions associated with near-term emissions control strategies at 
EGUs, and the 2027 ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to 
implement emissions reductions associated with new post-combustion 
control installations at EGUs as well as from installation of new 
pollution controls at non-EGUs.
    As identified in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to 
find that, because Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee are not 
linked to receptors in the 2026 ozone season, the near-term EGU 
emissions-control strategy is sufficient to eliminate these states' 
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Because 
Arizona remains linked to receptors through the 2026 ozone season, the 
EPA proposes to find that additional NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs 
and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from non-EGU sources in Arizona are 
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states 
and that additional cost-effective controls for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions are available from EGUs and in certain industries 
that would result in meaningful air quality improvements at downwind 
receptors. Thus, in addition to more stringent EGU emissions budgets 
for Arizona beginning in 2027, the EPA proposes to require emissions 
limitations beginning in 2027 for non-EGUs located within Arizona. The 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
limitations during the ozone season for the following unit types for 
sources in non-EGU industries: reciprocating internal combustion 
engines (RICE) in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in 
Cement and Cement Product Manufacturing; boilers and reheat furnaces in 
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass 
and Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers in Basic Chemical 
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills and combustors and 
incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 88 FR 36654, at 36817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA is 
providing an opportunity for public comment on its proposed conclusion 
that SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee do not 
contain the necessary provisions to prohibit emissions from sources 
within their states from interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS in downwind areas. The EPA also proposes to find it necessary to 
issue an error correction under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6) 
of its previous approval actions for Kansas and Iowa and proposes to 
partially disapprove these states' interstate transport submissions. In 
addition, the EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from sources in 
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interfere with 
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states, and therefore the 
EPA is proposing FIPs to address these states' transport obligations 
through expanding the coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule 
\6\ finalized on March 15, 2023. The EPA is proposing to implement the 
ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> trading program requirements for EGU 
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the FIPs for Arizona, 
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee and the emissions limits for 
non-EGU (industrial) sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the 
FIP for Arizona. These control strategies, if finalized,

[[Page 12669]]

will prohibit the emissions from these five states identified as 
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to extend the coverage of the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan to these five additional states based on the same data 
and analyses contained in that rule. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 
the EPA identified and finalized FIPs for 23 states with emissions that 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA used the same set of 
nationwide air quality modeling, air quality monitoring data, and 
technical analysis of emissions control opportunities in defining good 
neighbor obligations for all states covered in that action. Consistent 
with the application of the EPA's 4-step interstate transport 
framework, which has been used in prior good neighbor rules like the 
CSAPR and upheld by the federal courts, the EPA applied emissions 
control requirements on a uniform basis across those states based on 
that record.
    The EPA maintains that it is reasonable, appropriate, and 
consistent with the EPA's prior decisions to extend the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan's contribution analysis and emissions control 
requirements to include the five states covered in this action. The EPA 
has not identified any factors unique to these five states that would 
warrant applying a different approach. These five states were not 
addressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan because the EPA was not 
positioned to take final rulemaking action to disapprove SIPs, error 
correct prior approvals to disapprovals, or promulgate FIPs for these 
states at that time. To maintain consistency across all states such 
that the allocation of responsibility for eliminating states' 
significant contribution and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS 
in downwind states is done on an equitable basis, the EPA proposes to 
apply to five additional states the nationwide findings and 
determinations contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as to the 
original 23 states which will, if finalized, eliminate these additional 
states' significant contribution. Thus, in this action the EPA proposes 
to apply to these five states its air quality modeling and contribution 
information for the analytical years 2023 and 2026 at Steps 1 and 2, 
its analysis of emissions control opportunities for EGUs and non-EGUs 
and determinations of stringency, including overcontrol analysis, at 
Step 3, and its implementation programs at Step 4. The technical 
materials and record-based findings that underlie these determinations 
are all contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan record. The scope 
of this rulemaking is limited to the application of that record to 
these five additional states.
    Thus, in this document, the EPA is taking comment only on (a) the 
EPA's proposed conclusions that SIP submissions from Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee do not contain the necessary provisions to 
prohibit emissions from sources within their respective states from 
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone standard, (b) the EPA's 
proposed conclusion that the Agency must error correct its final rules 
approving SIPs from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals, (c) the 
EPA's proposed conclusions that the five states identified above have 
emissions that interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 
other states, and (d) the EPA's proposed decision to apply the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan emissions-control programs as the FIP requirements 
to address these emissions in these five states.
    Additionally, the EPA has updated its analysis of air quality 
improvements at Step 3 and demonstration that there is no overcontrol 
resulting from the inclusion of these five additional states in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes that the 2025 and 2027 
ozone seasons represent appropriate compliance start-dates for these 
states, affording sufficient lead time for sources to plan for 
compliance from the standpoint of when this rulemaking will likely be 
finalized, which the EPA currently anticipates will be in the summer of 
2024. These proposed findings are within the scope of this rulemaking 
and open for public comment.
    The EPA is not reopening any determinations made in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan as to the 23 states covered in that action. Nor is 
the EPA taking comment on any aspect of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 
except to the extent of its application to these five states. In 
general, the record for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule contains 
information at each step of the 4-step interstate transport framework 
that can be applied to these five states. Thus, the identification of 
receptors to which these five states are linked and the level of 
contribution from these states to those receptors is based on the same 
analytical findings using the air quality modeling and monitoring data 
contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In addition, the analysis 
underlying the EPA's determinations at Step 3 as to EGUs and non-EGUs 
and the appropriate degree of emissions-control stringency needed to 
eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance 
likewise was conducted on a region-wide basis, and in the EPA's view is 
reasonably applied to the emissions sources in these five states. The 
emissions-control requirements were established on a uniform basis for 
each particular industry covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and 
do not vary by State (except to the extent that states not linked in 
2026 are not subject to the requirements that onset in 2026 and 
California's EGUs are not subject to the EGU trading program). Based on 
these findings, these programs should be extended to these five states. 
This is reasonable and indeed necessary to ensure consistency and 
equitable treatment across all states in addressing the nationwide 
problem of interstate ozone pollution for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See EME 
Homer City v. EPA, 472 U.S. 572, 519, 524 (2014). This is also 
consistent with the EPA's practice throughout the history of 
implementing the good neighbor provision for other NAAQS. For instance, 
using the final analysis in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA soon 
after conducted rulemaking to include five additional states in the 
CSAPR trading programs. See 76 FR 80760 (December 27, 2011). Thus, for 
the same reasons, the EPA proposes to find it reasonable and 
appropriate to extend the uniform set of findings and determinations 
made in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five additional states 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not aware of any information with 
respect to these states that would justify a deviation from the same 
set of findings and requirements that already have been made for the 23 
states covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan with respect to these 
same obligations.
    Finally, this action also includes proposed technical corrections 
to the existing regulatory text finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan.

B. Costs and Benefits

    Table I.B-1 summarizes the key results of the cost-benefit analysis 
that was prepared for this proposed rule. Table I.B-1 presents 
estimates of the present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values 
(EAV), calculated using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent as 
recommended by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-
4, of the health and climate benefits, compliance costs, and net 
benefits of the proposed rule, in 2016 dollars, discounted to 2023. The 
estimated monetized net benefits are the

[[Page 12670]]

estimated monetized benefits minus the estimated monetized costs of the 
proposed rule. These results present an incomplete overview of the 
effects of the rule because important categories of benefits were not 
monetized (e.g., ecosystem effects, visibility impairment, and water 
quality improvements) and are therefore not reflected in the cost-
benefit tables. The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects 
into account would show the proposed rule to be more net beneficial 
than this table reflects.

Table I.B-1--Estimated Monetized Health and Climate Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposed
                                             Rule, 2025 Through 2044
                                    [Millions 2016$, discounted to 2023] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% Discount rate                      7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value:
    Health Benefits \b\............  $330 and $1,900......................  $210 and $1,200.
    Climate Benefits \c\...........  $9.3.................................  $9.3.
    Compliance Costs \d\...........  $67..................................  $45.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Benefits...............  $270 and $1,800......................  $180 and $1,100.
Equivalent Annualized Value:
    Health Benefits................  $22 and $130.........................  $20 and $110.
    Climate Benefits...............  $0.6.................................  $0.6.
    Compliance Costs...............  $4.5.................................  $4.2.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Net Benefits...............  $18 and $120.........................  $17 and $110.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and
  final Revised CSAPR Update Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), as well as the proposal and final Federal Good
  Neighbor Plan RIA; to be consistent with those recent actions we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar
  year for presenting costs and benefits.
\b\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over a 20-year period from 2025 to 2044.
  Monetized benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5
  concentrations. The health benefits are associated with two alternative estimates of the number of premature
  deaths and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. Several categories of benefits remain
  unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
\c\ Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) (model
  average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate).
  For presentational purposes in this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3-
  percent discount rate are used in the columns displaying results of other costs and benefits that are
  discounted at either a 3-percent or 7-percent discount rate.
\d\ The costs presented in this table are consistent with the costs presented in section 3 of the Economic
  Impact Assessment (EIA). To estimate these annualized costs for EGUs, the EPA uses a conventional and widely
  accepted approach that applies a capital recovery factor multiplier to capital investments and adds that to
  the annual incremental operating expenses. Costs were calculated using a 3.75 percent real discount rate
  consistent with the rate used in the Integrated Planning Model's (IPM) objective function for cost-
  minimization. For further information on the discount rate use, please see section 3 of the EIA.

    As shown in Table I.B-1, the PV of the monetized health benefits, 
associated with reductions in ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> of this 
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to 
be about $330 and $1,900 million, with an EAV of about $22 and $130 
million. At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the monetized health 
benefits is estimated to be $210 and $1,200 million, with an EAV of 
about $20 and $110 million. The PV of the monetized climate benefits, 
associated with reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, of this 
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to 
be about $9.3 million, with an EAV of about $0.6 million. The PV of the 
monetized compliance costs, discounted at a 3-percent rate, is 
estimated to be about $67 million, with an EAV of about $4.5 million. 
At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the compliance costs is 
estimated to be about $45 million, with an EAV of about $4.2 million.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This supplemental proposed rule affects EGU and non-EGU sources, 
and regulates the groups identified in Table II.A-1, along with their 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

                     Table II.A-1--Regulated Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Industry group                            NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation.............          221112
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas..................            4862
Metal Ore Mining........................................            2122
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing...............            3273
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing.......            3311
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing...................            3272
Basic Chemical Manufacturing............................            3251
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing...............            3241
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills.......................            3221
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.................          562213
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
proposed rule. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is 
now aware could potentially be

[[Page 12671]]

regulated by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed in 
the table could also be regulated. To determine whether a particular 
entity is regulated by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 97.1004 (EGUs) or 40 CFR 
52.40(c), 52.41(b), 52.42(b), 52.43(b), 52.44(b), 52.45(b), and 
52.46(b) (non-EGUs). If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this proposed rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    The EPA evaluated whether interstate ozone transport emissions from 
upwind states are significantly contributing to nonattainment, or 
interfering with maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any downwind 
State using the same 4-step interstate transport framework that was 
developed in previous ozone transport rulemakings. In its previous 
action, the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA found that sources in 
23 states had obligations to eliminate their significant contribution 
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in downwind 
areas.\7\ In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to apply that 
same analysis to find that emissions reductions are required from EGU 
sources in the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, 
and Tennessee and from non-EGU sources in Arizona. The EPA proposes to 
ensure that these NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions are achieved by 
issuing FIP requirements for these five states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions 
from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee lack adequate provisions to 
ensure sources and other emissions activity in their states are not 
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. 
The EPA is also proposing to error correct its previous actions on SIP 
submissions from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals for the same 
reason.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4, 
2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this same action, the EPA proposes FIP requirements for these 
five states. The EPA is proposing to incorporate Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, 
New Mexico, and Tennessee into the existing CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan, beginning in the 2025 ozone season. EGUs in states not currently 
covered by any CSAPR trading program for seasonal NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions--Arizona and New Mexico--will be added to the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program under this rule. 
EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee will transition from the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program to the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. The EPA is 
establishing a control stringency level reflecting optimization of 
existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-art 
combustion controls on certain covered EGU sources in the emissions 
budgets beginning in the 2025 ozone season. In addition, for Arizona, 
the EPA is establishing a control stringency level reflecting 
installation of new Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Selective 
Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) controls on certain covered EGU sources 
in its emissions budgets beginning with the 2027 ozone season.
    Consistent with the emissions limitations established for non-EGU 
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, this supplemental action 
proposes to establish emissions limitations for new and existing non-
EGU sources in Arizona beginning with the 2027 ozone season. The 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established control requirements for the 
following unit types in non-EGU industries: RICE in Pipeline 
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement Product 
Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 
Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing; 
boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing, Metal Ore 
Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and combustors 
and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators. See Table 
II.A-1 in this document for a list of NAICS codes for the relevant 
industries.
    In accordance with the requirements of the good neighbor provision, 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this proposed rule reduces the 
transport of ozone and ozone precursors from emissions in upwind states 
to downwind areas to protect human health and the environment from 
negative health impacts associated with acute and chronic exposure to 
ozone. Ozone exposure is also associated with negative effects on 
ecosystems. Additional information on the air quality issues addressed 
by this proposed rule is included in section IX. of this document.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this 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 
action. The most relevant portions of CAA section 110 are subsections 
110(a)(1), 110(a)(2) (including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)), 110(k)(2), 
110(k)(3), 110(k)(6), and 110(c)(1).
    CAA 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.\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
    \10\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 
509-10 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'' or ``iSIP'' 
submissions.'' CAA section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 
requirements for iSIP submissions, and CAA section 110(a)(2) provides 
more details concerning the required content of these submissions.\11\ 
It includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' must 
address, including the requirements of the good neighbor provision.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    \12\ The EPA's general approach to infrastructure SIP 
submissions is explained in greater detail in individual documents 
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) (September 13, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a 
FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (1) finds that 
a State has failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) finds a SIP 
submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C); or 
(3) disapproves a SIP submission. This obligation applies unless the 
State corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that

[[Page 12672]]

the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' 
provision, provides the primary basis for this proposed action.\14\ It 
requires that each State's SIP include provisions sufficient to 
``prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, 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].'' \15\ The EPA often 
refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as 
``good neighbor obligations'' and submissions addressing these 
requirements as ``good neighbor SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, the EPA must designate areas as 
being in ``attainment'' or ``nonattainment'' of the NAAQS, or 
``unclassifiable.'' CAA section 107(d).\16\ For ozone, nonattainment is 
further split into five classifications based on the severity of the 
violation--Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. Higher 
classifications provide states with progressively more time to attain 
while imposing progressively more stringent control requirements. See 
CAA sections 181, 182.\17\ In general, states with nonattainment areas 
classified as Moderate or higher must submit plans to the EPA to bring 
these areas into attainment according to the statutory schedule in CAA 
section 182.\18\ If an area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment 
date associated with its classification, it is ``bumped up'' to the 
next classification, per the requirements in CAA section 181(b).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d).
    \17\ 42 U.S.C. 7511, 7511a.
    \18\ 42 U.S.C. 7511a.
    \19\ 42 U.S.C. 7511(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the Administrator the general 
authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
functions under the Act.\20\ Pursuant to this section, the EPA has 
authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements and 
undertake other rulemaking action as necessary to implement CAA 
requirements. CAA section 301 affords the Agency any additional 
authority that may be needed to make certain other changes to its 
regulations under 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 to effectuate the purposes of 
the Act. Such changes are discussed in section X. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority, 
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior 
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining 
that those actions were in error.\21\ As discussed further in section 
V.A. of this document, the EPA proposes to make error corrections under 
CAA section 110(k)(6) with respect to its prior approvals of the 2015 
ozone transport SIP submissions from the States of Iowa and Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tribes are not required to submit State implementation plans. 
However, as explained in the EPA's regulations outlining Tribal CAA 
authority, the EPA is authorized to promulgate FIPs for Indian country 
as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality if a Tribe does not 
submit, and obtain the EPA's approval of, an implementation plan. See 
40 CFR 49.11(a); see also CAA section 301(d)(4).\22\ In this action, 
the EPA proposes an ``appropriate or necessary'' finding under CAA 
section 301(d) and proposes Tribal FIP(s) as necessary to implement the 
relevant requirements. This is further discussed in section V.B. of 
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Severability

    The EPA regards this proposal as a complete remedy for the covered 
states, which will as expeditiously as practicable implement good 
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the 
requirements of the Act. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-
12 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313- 20 (D.C. Cir. 
2019); Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York 
v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214, 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York v. EPA, 781 Fed. 
App'x 4, 7-8 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (all holding that the EPA must address 
good neighbor obligations as expeditiously as practicable and by no 
later than the next applicable attainment date). Yet the EPA proposes 
that should a court find any discrete aspect of this action, if 
finalized, to be invalid, the Agency believes that, like the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, the remaining aspects of this proposed rule can and 
should continue to be implemented to the extent possible, consistent 
with law. See 88 FR 36693. In particular, this proposal would 
disapprove SIP submissions and promulgate a FIP for each covered state 
(and, pursuant to CAA section 301(d), for each area of tribal 
jurisdiction within the geographic boundaries of those states). Should 
any jurisdiction-specific aspect of the rule, once finalized be found 
invalid, the EPA views this rule, if finalized as proposed, as 
severable along those state and/or tribal jurisdictional lines, such 
that the proposed rule could continue to be implemented as to any 
remaining jurisdictions. This action proposes discrete emissions 
control requirements for the power sector and for each of nine other 
industries. Should any industry-specific aspect of the proposed rule be 
found invalid once final, the EPA views this rule as proposed as 
severable as between the different industries and different types of 
emissions control requirements. This is not intended to be an 
exhaustive list of the ways in which the proposed rule may be 
severable. In the event any part of the rule, if finalized, is found 
invalid, our intention is that the remaining portions should continue 
to be implemented consistent with any judicial ruling.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In a declaration dated October 28, 2023, and filed with the 
U.S. Supreme Court in State of Ohio et al. v. EPA, No. 23A349, the 
Agency, through Joseph Goffman, the Principal Deputy Assistant 
Administrator performing delegated duties of Assistant Administrator 
for the Office of Air and Radiation, explained in greater detail why 
it makes sense as both a technical and legal matter that the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan can continue to be implemented in each covered 
state despite preliminary stays of the Plan in other states. This 
same reasoning applies with full force with respect to the 
additional states that are proposed for inclusion in these programs 
in this action. The declaration is included in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's conclusion that this proposed rule, upon finalization, is 
severable also reflects the important public health and environmental 
benefits of this rulemaking in eliminating significant contribution and 
to ensure to the greatest extent possible the ability of both upwind 
states and downwind states and other relevant stakeholders to be able 
to rely on this rule at final in their planning. Cf. Wisconsin, 938 
F.3d at 336-37 (``As a general rule, we do not vacate regulations when 
doing so would risk significant harm to the public health or the 
environment.''); North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (noting the need to preserve public health benefits); EME Homer 
City v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting the need to 
avoid disruption to emissions trading market that had developed).

E. Public Participation

1. Written Comments
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be

[[Page 12673]]

edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at 
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be CBI, 
Proprietary Business Information (PBI), 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). 
Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for 
additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy; 
information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and general 
guidance on making effective comments.
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
    The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register to 
speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form 
available at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs or 
contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 and/or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#670b0809004917060a2702170649000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf0f3f2fbb2ecfdf1dcf9ecfdb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a> to 
register to speak at the virtual hearing. The last day to pre-register 
to speak at the hearing will be 3 working days before the hearing. On 
[last working day before the hearing], the EPA will post a general 
agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in 
approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. 
Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at 
the hearing registration desk. The EPA will make every effort to 
accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences 
on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. Each commenter will 
have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters 
to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically 
by emailing it to Ms. Pamela Long. The EPA also recommends submitting 
the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking 
docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are 
posted online at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. 
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, 
please monitor our website or contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 
and/or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#630f0c0d044d13020e230613024d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="177b7879703967767a5772677639707861">[email protected]</span></a> to determine if there are any updates. The EPA 
does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing updates.
    The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations 
unless the Agency receives special requests in advance. Commenters 
should notify Ms. Pamela Long when they pre-register to speak that they 
will need specific equipment. If you require the services of an 
interpreter or special accommodations such as audio description, please 
pre-register for the hearing with Ms. Pamela Long and describe your 
needs by [DATE 1 WEEK BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE]. The EPA may not 
be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

III. Background

A. Description of Statutory Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone 
NAAQS (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary 
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) for the 8-hour 
standard.\24\ Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, 
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP 
submissions meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2).\25\ One of these applicable requirements is found in CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' or 
``interstate transport'' provision, which generally requires that SIPs 
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities 
from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to 
interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-called ``prongs'' 
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a new or revised NAAQS 
must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type 
of emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants in 
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 
NAAQS in another State (Prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the 
NAAQS in another State (Prong 2). The EPA and states must give 
independent significance to Prong 1 and Prong 2 when evaluating 
downwind air quality problems under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final 
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the 
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are 
also described in ppb. For example, 0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70 
ppb.
    \25\ SIP submissions that are intended to meet the applicable 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often 
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under 
CAA section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure 
requirements.
    \26\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir. 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 31, 2023, the EPA finalized disapproval of 19 SIP 
submissions and partially approved and partially disapproved two SIP 
submissions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS. The EPA's evaluation for those actions applied uniform, 
nationwide analytical methods, policy judgments, and interpretation 
with respect to the same CAA obligations, i.e., implementation of good 
neighbor requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS for states across the country. To maintain consistency 
across all states in light of the final analytical conclusions reached 
in that action and the separate Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA 
indicated it would take subsequent action on remaining SIP submissions 
addressing interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.\27\ The EPA also indicated it would address previous final 
actions on SIP submissions for states where the EPA's final analysis 
suggested the State may be significantly contributing to nonattainment 
or interfering with maintenance. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 
finalized on March 15, 2023, the EPA indicated it would address these 
and any outstanding FIP obligations in a future action for these 
states, which included the five states included here and Wyoming.\28\ 
The EPA finalized its approval of the SIP submission from Wyoming on 
December 13, 2023.\29\ This action proposes to

[[Page 12674]]

address the five additional remaining SIP submissions and FIP 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 88 FR 36656.
    \28\ 88 FR 36654 at 36656.
    \29\ See Air Plan Approval; Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Air 
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards, 88 FR 54998 (August 14, 2023). The EPA signed the final 
approval on December 13, 2023. 88 FR 87720 (December 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport Regulatory 
Process

    For decades, when evaluating SIPs and formulating FIPs, EPA has 
consistently utilized the 4-step interstate transport framework (or 4-
step framework), which was developed to give meaning to the critical 
statutory terms in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to provide a 
reasonable organization to the analysis of the complex air quality 
challenge of interstate ozone transport. The EPA has addressed the 
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
with respect to prior NAAQS using the 4-step framework in several 
regulatory actions, including the CSAPR, which addressed interstate 
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\30\ the CSAPR Update \31\ and 
the Revised CSAPR Update, both of which addressed the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.\32\ For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA uses this framework in 
evaluating SIP submissions (while considering any alternative 
approaches states may propose) and applied this framework in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of 
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \31\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone 
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \32\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the 
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to 
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable 
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance 
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin 
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Revised CSAPR Update 
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), responded to 
the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin and the vacatur of a 
separate rule, the ``CSAPR Close-Out,'' 83 FR 65878 (December 21, 
2018), in New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \33\ See 88 FR at 9338; 88 FR at 36671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shaped through the years by input from State air agencies \34\ and 
other stakeholders on the EPA's prior interstate transport rulemakings 
and SIP submission actions,\35\ as well as a number of court decisions, 
the EPA has developed and used the 4-step interstate transport 
framework to evaluate State's obligations to eliminate interstate 
transport emissions under the interstate transport provision for the 
ozone NAAQS: (1) identify monitoring sites that are projected to have 
problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment 
and/or maintenance receptors); (2) identify states that impact those 
air quality problems in other (i.e., downwind) states sufficiently such 
that the states are considered to ``contribute'' (i.e., are considered 
``linked'') to those receptors and whose emissions therefore warrant 
further review and analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions 
necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to eliminate each 
linked upwind State's significant contribution to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations identified 
in Step 1; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to 
achieve those emissions reductions. EPA does not require states to use 
the 4-step framework in good neighbor SIP submissions, but it is a 
useful organizational tool that has been upheld by the Supreme Court as 
``permissible, workable, and equitable.'' EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 524 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 63 FR 57356, 57361 (October 27, 1998).
    \35\ In addition to CSAPR rulemakings, other regional 
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the ``NO<INF>X</INF> 
SIP Call,'' 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the ``Clean Air 
Interstate Rule'' (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general steps of this framework allow for some methodological 
variation, and this can be seen in the evolution of the EPA's analytic 
process across its prior rulemakings. This also means states have some 
flexibility in developing analytic methods within this framework (and 
may also attempt to justify an alternative framework altogether). The 
four steps of the framework provide a reasonable organization to the 
analysis of the complex air quality challenge of interstate ozone 
transport. As discussed further throughout this document, the EPA has 
organized its evaluation of good neighbor obligations around this 
analytical framework (including the specific methodologies within each 
step as evolved over the course of the CSAPR rulemakings since 2011). 
Where states presented alternative approaches either to the EPA's 
methodological approaches within the framework, or organized their 
analysis in some manner that differed from it entirely, the EPA has 
evaluated those analyses on their merits to determine compliance with 
the good neighbor obligation or, in some cases, identified why even if 
those approaches were acceptable, the State still does not meet the 
good neighbor requirement and therefore does not have an approvable SIP 
submission as a whole.

C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling

    The EPA has performed nationwide air quality modeling to project 
ozone design values that are used in combination with measured data to 
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors at Step 1. To quantify 
the contribution of emissions from individual upwind states on 2023 and 
2026 ozone design values for the identified downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors at Step 2, the EPA has performed nationwide, 
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023 and 2026. The 
source apportionment modeling provides contributions to ozone at 
receptors from precursor emissions of anthropogenic NO<INF>X</INF> and 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in individual upwind states. In this 
action, the EPA is proposing to apply the air quality modeling and 
contribution results that were derived using the 2016v3 modeling and 
monitoring data that informed the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 
determinations in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan--inclusive of the 
approach for identifying certain addition sites as violating-monitor 
maintenance-only receptors based on certified monitoring data and 
regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. This section provides an 
overview of the modeling developments that resulted in those analytical 
conclusions, which are used here to make good neighbor determinations 
for these five additional states.
    The EPA released several documents containing projected ozone 
design values, contributions, and information relevant to air agencies 
for evaluation of interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data 
availability (NODA) in which the Agency requested comment on 
preliminary interstate ozone transport data including projected ozone 
design values and interstate contributions for 2023 using a 2011 base 
year platform.\36\ In the NODA, the EPA used the year 2023 as the 
analytic year for this preliminary modeling because this year aligns 
with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment 
areas for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\37\ On October 27, 2017, the EPA 
released a memorandum (October 2017 memorandum) containing updated 
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response

[[Page 12675]]

to comments on the NODA, and was intended to provide information to 
assist states' efforts to develop SIP submissions to address interstate 
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for 
the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \37\ 82 FR at 1735.
    \38\ See 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), October 27, 2017, available in docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum (March 2018 
memorandum) noting that the same 2023 modeling data released in the 
October 2017 memorandum could also be useful for identifying potential 
downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at 
Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\39\ The March 2018 
memorandum also included the then newly available contribution modeling 
data for 2023 to assist states in evaluating their impact on potential 
downwind air quality problems for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS under 
Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\40\ The EPA 
subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and October 2018, 
providing additional information to states developing interstate 
transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning, 
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate 
to apply in Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, and 
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems 
maintaining the standard at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport 
framework.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 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), March 27, 2018 (``March 2018 memorandum''), 
available in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \40\ The March 2018 memorandum, however, provided, ``While the 
information in this memorandum and the associated air quality 
analysis data could be used to inform the development of these SIPs, 
the information is not a final determination regarding states' 
obligations under the good neighbor provision. Any such 
determination would be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.''
    \41\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean 
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018 (``August 2018 memorandum''), 
and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in 
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State 
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the release of the modeling data shared in the March 2018 
memorandum, the EPA performed updated modeling using a 2016 base year 
emissions modeling platform (i.e., 2016 Version 1 Emissions Platform 
Modeling, or ``2016v1''). This emissions platform was developed under 
the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state collaborative 
project.\42\ This collaborative project was a multi-year joint effort 
by the EPA, MJOs, and states to develop a new, more recent emissions 
platform for use by the EPA and states in regulatory modeling as an 
improvement over the dated 2011-based platform that the EPA had used to 
project ozone design values and contribution data provided in the 2017 
and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone 
design values and contributions for 2023. On October 30, 2020, in the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA 
released and accepted public comment on 2023 modeling that used the 
2016v1 emissions platform.\43\ Although the Revised CSAPR Update 
addressed transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the projected design 
values and contributions from the 2016v1 platform were also useful for 
identifying downwind ozone problems and linkages with respect to the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The results of this modeling, as well as the underlying 
modeling files, are included in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. 
The 2016v1 emissions modeling technical support document is 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272-0187. Both dockets 
are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \43\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981.
    \44\ See the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for 
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, included in 
the Headquarters docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the final Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA made further 
updates to the 2016-based emissions platform to include updated onroad 
mobile emissions from Version 3 of the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission 
Simulator (MOVES) model (MOVES3) \45\ and updated emissions projections 
for EGUs that reflected the emissions reductions from the Revised CSAPR 
Update, recent information on plant closures, and other inventory 
improvements. The EPA published these emissions inventories on its 
website in September of 2021 and invited initial feedback from states 
and other interested stakeholders.\46\ The construct of the updated 
emissions platform, (i.e., 2016 Version 2 Emissions Platform Modeling, 
or ``2016v2''), is described in the ``Technical Support Document (TSD): 
Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 North American 
Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v2 Emissions 
Modeling TSD, and is included in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. The 
EPA performed air quality modeling using the 2016v2 emissions to 
provide projections of ozone design values and contributions in 2023 
and 2026 that reflect the effects on air quality of the 2016v2 
emissions platform. The EPA used the results of the 2016v2 modeling to 
inform proposed and final actions on 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor 
obligations for Iowa and Kansas.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Additional details and documentation related to the MOVES3 
model can be found at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
    \46\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.
    \47\ The EPA was obligated by consent-decree deadline to 
finalize its action for Iowa and Kansas by April 30, 2022, and was 
unable to consider or incorporate the later comments received on the 
2016v2 modeling that were used to inform the 2016v3 modeling 
informing the final Disapproval action and final Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan in early 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also used the 2016v2 emissions inventories and modeling to 
support proposed actions for several states, including the EPA's 
previous proposals on Arizona and Tennesse, as well as the proposed 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In response to comments received for these 
rulemakings, the EPA updated the 2016v2 inventories and model design to 
construct another emissions platform (i.e., 2016 Version 3 Emissions 
Platform Modeling, or ``2016v3''), which was used to update the air 
quality modeling. The EPA used this updated modeling to inform a final 
rulemaking taking final action on 21 interstate transport SIP 
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and to inform the final Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan.<SUP>48 49</SUP> In its final actions on both SIP 
disapprovals, and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA provided an 
explanation of the adjustments and other modifications made to 
construct the 2016v3 platform. Details on the 2016v3 air quality 
modeling and the methods for projecting design values and determining 
contributions in 2023 and 2026 based on this platform are described in 
the TSD titled ``Air Quality

[[Page 12676]]

Modeling Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' 
hereafter known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.\50\ Additional 
details related to the 2016v3 emissions platform are located in the TSD 
titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v3 North 
American Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v3 
Emissions Modeling TSD, included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air 
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good 
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
    \49\ In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified and 
finalized FIPs for 23 states. This included the 21 states included 
in the SIP Disapproval action, as well as Pennsylvania and Virginia. 
The EPA had an obligation to finalize a FIP for these two states 
(and Utah) following the EPA's finding of a failure to submit a SIP 
from these two states (84 FR 66612). The EPA has not since received 
SIP submissions from Pennsylvania or Virginia.
    \50\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
    \51\ 2016v3 Emissions Modeling TSD in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proposed action, the EPA primarily relies on modeling based 
on the 2016v3 emissions platform coupled with measured data in Steps 1 
and 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, which will 
generally be referenced within this action as the ``2016v3 modeling'' 
for 2023 and 2026. As discussed further in section III.D.2. of this 
document, the EPA is also applying its findings regarding violating-
monitor maintenance-only receptors in 2023 using certified monitoring 
data and regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. The EPA used the 
2016v3 modeling to calculate contributions to these receptors. By again 
using this same set of monitoring data and updated modeling results, 
the EPA is using the most current and technically appropriate 
information for this proposed rulemaking and also ensuring that its 
regulatory determinations for these remaining states are wholly 
consistent with the findings informing the EPA's final determinations 
for all of the states included in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan. 
In this proposed action, the EPA is accepting public comment on the 
2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor methodology, solely as they 
relate to Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interstate 
transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not 
reopening the modeling in relation to any other State or regulatory 
action. Any comments received on the modeling that are not relevant to 
the evaluation of these states' interstate transport obligations will 
be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
    States may have chosen to rely on the results of prior versions of 
EPA's modeling and/or alternative modeling performed by states or MJOs 
to evaluate downwind air quality problems and contributions as part of 
their SIP submissions. The EPA is not proposing to disapprove any 
State's submission in this action based on the State's choice of 
modeling, but, consistent with its disapproval action, based on the 
EPA's evaluation of the entire record, which aims to factually 
determine whether states are projected to significantly contribute to 
or interfere with maintenance in the 2023 analytical year. See 88 FR at 
9343. In section IV.B. of this document, the EPA evaluates how Arizona, 
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee used air quality modeling 
information in their SIP submissions.
    A summary of the methodology and results of the 2016v3 modeling for 
2023 and 2026, along with the application of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 
2 methodology for identifying receptors and upwind states that 
contribute to those receptors can be found in the Final Good Neighbor 
Plan AQM TSD. That document also contains explanations as to how 
current measured ozone levels based on data for 2021 and 2022 at other 
monitoring sites (i.e., monitoring sites that are not projected to be 
receptors in 2023 based on air quality modeling) confirm the likely 
continuation of elevated ozone levels in 2023 at these locations. This 
analysis shows that each of the five states in this action are linked 
at or above (i.e., contributing equal to or more than) 1 percent of the 
NAAQS to one or more of these monitors. Kansas and Tennessee are linked 
only to violating-monitor receptors, and not to modeling-based 
receptors. In recognition that the EPA had not proposed these sites as 
receptors, linkages to such receptors were used only in a 
``confirmatory'' way to inform the final Disapproval action and Good 
Neighbor Plan (i.e., to reinforce linkage findings as to states that 
were otherwise linked to modeling-based receptors). In this proposed 
action, the EPA finds the existence of such linkages is sufficient to 
establish that a State contributes to such receptors and is thus an 
adequate basis on which to propose disapproval of the SIP submissions 
from Kansas and Tennesse.

D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the 2015 
Ozone NAAQS

    The EPA has applied a consistent set of policy judgments across all 
states for purposes of evaluating interstate transport obligations and 
the approvability of interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and proposes to 
continue to do so in this action. These policy judgments conform with 
relevant case law and past Agency practice as reflected in the CSAPR 
and related rulemakings. Employing a nationally consistent approach is 
particularly important in the context of interstate ozone transport, 
which is a regional-scale pollution problem characterized by the 
collective contribution from many upwind states to geographically 
dispersed monitors over distances of hundreds of miles. Effective 
policy solutions to the problem of interstate ozone transport going 
back to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call have necessitated the application 
of a uniform framework of policy judgments to ensure an ``efficient and 
equitable'' approach. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 572 
U.S. 489, 519 (2014).
    In the March, August, and October 2018 memoranda, the EPA 
recognized that states may be able to establish alternative approaches 
to addressing their interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS that vary from a nationally uniform framework. The EPA emphasized 
in these memoranda, however, that such alternative approaches must be 
technically justified and appropriate in light of the facts and 
circumstances of each particular State's SIP submission. In general, 
the EPA continues to believe that deviation from a nationally 
consistent approach to ozone transport must have a well-documented 
technical basis that is consistent with CAA obligations and relevant 
case law. Where states submitted SIP submissions that rely on any such 
potential concepts as the EPA or others may have identified or 
suggested in the past, the EPA will evaluate whether the State 
adequately justified the technical and legal basis for doing so.
    The EPA notes that certain potential concepts included in an 
attachment to the March 2018 memorandum require unique consideration, 
and these ideas do not constitute Agency guidance with respect to 
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Attachment A 
to the March 2018 memorandum identified a ``Preliminary List of 
Potential Flexibilities'' that could potentially inform SIP 
development. However, the EPA made clear in both the March 2018 
memorandum \52\ and in Attachment A that the list of ideas was not 
endorsed by the Agency but rather ``comments provided in various 
forums'' on which the EPA sought ``feedback from interested 
stakeholders.'' \53\ Further, Attachment A stated, ``EPA is not at this 
time making any determination that the ideas discussed below are 
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, nor are we specifically 
recommending that states

[[Page 12677]]

use these approaches.'' \54\ Attachment A to the March 2018 memorandum, 
therefore, does not constitute Agency guidance, but was intended to 
generate further discussion around potential approaches to addressing 
ozone transport among interested stakeholders. To the extent states 
sought to develop or rely on one or more of these ideas in support of 
their SIP submissions, the EPA will thoroughly review the technical and 
legal justifications for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A.
    \53\ Id. at A-1.
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of this section describes the EPA's analytic 
framework and interpretation of the critical terms of the good neighbor 
provision with respect to analytic year, definition of nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors, selection of contribution threshold, and 
multifactor control strategy assessment.
1. Selection of Analytic Years
    In this section, the EPA describes its process for selecting 
analytic years for air quality modeling and analyses performed to 
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors and identify upwind 
State linkages. The EPA is retaining the 2023 and 2026 analytical years 
used to inform the obligations of the 23 states included in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, to ensure consistency and equitable treatment of 
all states. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA evaluated air 
quality to identify receptors at Step 1 and evaluate interstate 
contributions at Step 2 for two analytic years: 2023 and 2026.\55\ 
These years are the last full ozone seasons before the Moderate and 
Serious area attainment dates for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (ozone seasons 
for purposes of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan run each year from May 
1-September 30, see 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.40(c)(1)). To 
demonstrate attainment by these deadlines, downwind states would be 
required to rely on design values calculated using ozone data from 2021 
through 2023 and 2024 through 2026, respectively. Areas that do not 
attain by the deadline may be ``bumped up'' to a higher nonattainment 
classification level per CAA sections 181 and 182, thereby incurring 
additional ongoing obligations. Thus, in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan, consistent with each of its prior good neighbor rulemakings, the 
EPA focused its analysis on the last full ozone seasons before the 
attainment dates (i.e., 2023 and 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ While the 2023 analytic year provides a sufficient basis to 
act on the SIP submissions in this action, consistent with the EPA's 
Disapproval action, see 88 FR 9340-41, the EPA uses the 2026 
analytic year to ensure a complete Step 3 analysis in the context of 
developing the FIP, see 88 FR 36694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency recognizes that in applying its 2023 and 2026 analytics 
to inform this action, it may be perceived as acting inconsistently 
with a longstanding policy of always considering a future analytic year 
from the standpoint of the timing of its rulemaking action. However, 
the EPA determined that several important, overriding considerations 
warrant adopting this approach in this supplemental rulemaking. As 
explained in section I.A. of this document, it is imperative to 
maintain a consistent set of analytical and policy determinations 
across all states in the context of addressing the interstate ozone 
problem; the EPA is doing so by using a consistent set of data and 
analytical conclusions between the states included in this action and 
those for which the EPA has already rendered final determinations in 
the final SIP Disapproval action and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. 
Were the EPA to conduct a new set of air quality analyses tied to years 
beyond 2023 or 2026, the EPA would separately evaluate these states 
using different data than that which informed and defined the 
obligations of all other states, solely as a result of the timing of 
the EPA's action on these states. Where the need for parity among 
states or other jurisdictions in like circumstances warrants it, courts 
have recognized that it may be appropriate for agencies like the EPA to 
rely on a unified dataset to ensure consistency in treatment. See Bd. 
County Commissioners of Weld County v. EPA, 72 F.4th 284, 290 (D.C. 
Cir. 2023) (upholding as reasonable the EPA's determination that 
``greater parity among counties and faster turnaround [ ] make the 
original data a better choice than partial updating''). The importance 
of use of a single, already-developed dataset focused on the years 2023 
and 2026 to define good neighbor obligations for all states to ensure 
consistency among states and for ``faster turnaround'' to complete this 
supplemental rulemaking is, in the EPA's judgment, sufficiently 
compelling to justify this approach here.
    The EPA's use of a common and unified dataset here is consistent 
with all of its past good neighbor rulemakings, including those in 
which the EPA conducted updated air quality analysis to address 
remaining good neighbor obligations. In both the CSAPR Update and the 
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA took action to address good neighbor FIP 
actions that had been remanded to the EPA. In each case, the EPA 
addressed the remanded obligations for all of the covered states 
through analysis of a new analytic year. This ensured consistency among 
all of the states where there were good neighbor obligations that 
needed to be addressed. See, e.g., 86 FR 23067-68 (discussing error 
correction for Kentucky ``consistent with EPA's methodology to address 
the other 20 states'' included in that action). Further, the EPA 
already had updated modeling at hand that could inform its new action. 
See, e.g., id. at 23074, 23079-80. Likewise, where all of a group of 
states' obligations were being addressed on remand from an action that 
had not been vacated (as was the case in both the CSAPR Update and the 
Revised CSAPR Update), it was important to reflect the emissions 
reductions and air quality improvements that were already being 
achieved from the non-vacated action in the baseline. See, e.g., id. at 
23075. In this case, the EPA is not re-evaluating a group of states but 
addressing additional states in a manner that ensures consistent 
treatment with the first set of states. This circumstance is analogous 
to the supplemental rulemaking the EPA undertook soon following the 
original CSAPR rulemaking to add several states to those programs based 
on the same data and analysis that informed the CSAPR. See 76 FR 80760 
(December 27, 2011). In the EPA's judgment, the relevant considerations 
therefore weigh in favor of using the currently available air quality 
data that has already been used to define other states' obligations.
    In addition, like the CSAPR supplemental rulemaking, the timing of 
this action is the result of procedural happenstance, rather than a 
substantive difference in the circumstances of any of these five 
states. This timing was driven by the nature of the EPA's prior 
proposed or final actions, or lack of such actions, that had been taken 
at the time the EPA completed its final, updated air quality analysis 
informing its final determinations on other states' obligations in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (explained further in section III.C. of this 
document). This final analysis of obligations based on 2023 and 2026 
analytics necessitated the EPA's reevaluation of its proposals on 
Arizona and Tennessee's SIP submissions, as well as the EPA's past 
final actions on Iowa and Kansas' SIPs.\56\ In these circumstances, 
given the potential change in the status of these states, the EPA also 
found it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity

[[Page 12678]]

for public comment on the EPA's changed basis for action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The EPA has not taken any previous proposed or final action 
on New Mexico's SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, shifting the analysis of good neighbor obligations forward 
to a new analytic year for these five states would not be relevant to a 
proper definition of these good neighbor obligations, and switching the 
analytic year(s) for just these five states could create an inequitable 
result both amongst other upwind states and between these five states 
and the downwind states to which they are linked. Creating a different 
set of data for a later year for these states, when the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan has already defined requirements and is in effect for 
certain other states, would introduce an interdependency, or ``who goes 
first,'' problem that the EPA's framework generally is designed to 
avoid. See Ky. Energy & Env't Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir. 
Nov. 9, 2023), Slip Op. at 8. The EPA is not reopening the 
determinations made for the 23 upwind states covered in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, and 2023 and 2026 were appropriately selected as 
the analytical years to inform the EPA's evaluation of these states. 
See 88 FR at 36694-96. These years are associated with the statutory 
attainment schedule faced by the downwind states with designated 
nonattainment areas where the identified receptors are located. It is 
at the least reasonable, therefore, to align these five states' 
evaluation with the remainder of the states in the country, which will 
maintain parity among all jurisdictions, which is preferable to only 
``partially updating'' the analysis in the case of a handful of states. 
Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290. This is a particularly important 
consideration in implementing the good neighbor provision for ozone. 
The EPA must ensure each state is held to the elimination of its own 
significant contribution. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 920-
21 (D.C. Cir. 2008). And interstate ozone pollution presents a 
``collective contribution'' problem in which the EPA must allocate a 
fair share of responsibility among sources across multiple states. See 
Maryland v. EPA, 1185 F.3d at 120304 (D.C. Cir. 2020); id. at 1204 
(``So long as upwind sources significantly contribute to [a state's] 
nonattainment at its 2021 [Marginal] attainment deadline, they violate 
the Good Neighbor Provision.'').
    As the Maryland court recognized, the consequences on downwind 
nonattainment areas from failure to obtain relief from upwind 
significant contribution are not just continuing poor air quality, but 
also regulatory requirements that apply for years into the future, 
including ``a requirement to provide for annual emissions reductions in 
SIPs.'' Id. (citing CAA section 182(b)). The relief that can be 
afforded through addressing the upwind states' significant 
contribution, as proposed in this action, will therefore potentially 
lessen regulatory burdens on downwind states that Congress commanded 
they are not to bear alone. See 88 FR 36840 (discussing the history of 
downwind states' and the EPA's reliance on emissions reductions 
achieved through prior good neighbor rules in, for example, 
redesignation actions and maintenance plans); cf. Maryland, 958 F.3d at 
1200 (a state that cannot obtain relief from an upwind state's 
significant contribution to a continuing nonattainment designation ``is 
stuck in regulatory limbo''). Thus, using a common dataset makes good 
sense in this context; it is consistent with the requirements and the 
purpose of the good neighbor provision, and it ensures these 
obligations are implemented both expeditiously and in a consistent and 
equitable manner. Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ While use of a common dataset makes sense for the reasons 
stated, the EPA notes that it is not aware of other data sets, 
including either monitoring data or modeling projections, that would 
suggest alternative regulatory conclusions from those proposed here. 
As evidenced by the most recent certified monitoring data and design 
values from 2021 and 2022 used in the violating-monitor receptor-
identification methodology, relatively elevated ozone levels 
exceeding the NAAQS continue to be observed throughout much of the 
continental U.S., including in the designated nonattainment areas 
where many of the ozone-transport receptors identified in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of a common set of air quality data was upheld in Weld 
County. The court, however, went on to find that another portion of the 
EPA's action under review constituted impermissible retroactive 
rulemaking, because it ``effectively backdated'' a nonattainment 
designation, leaving a state that would have had a three-year period to 
reach attainment in the position of ``missing a compliance deadline 
that passed before the underlying legal obligation was imposed.'' 72 
F.4th at 293. This proposed action does not operate retroactively. The 
EPA's use of the 2023 analytic year does not in and of itself impose 
any obligations on any sources or states. Rather it provides a common 
dataset to assess whether any state is contributing to downwind 
problems attaining the NAAQS. The EPA proposes to set compliance 
obligations based on the amount of time needed for sources to come into 
compliance and does not propose to impose liability on such sources for 
not meeting the proposed obligations at some point in the past. See 
section VII.A.4. and B. of this document. Nor would the proposed rule 
apply retroactively to the five states with SIP submissions proposed to 
be disapproved. The EPA is not proposing to backdate the date of 
finalization of these proposed disapprovals to sometime in the past. 
Rather, if the proposed disapprovals are finalized, the only legal 
consequence--the establishment of a duty on the EPA to promulgate a 
FIP--would run from the date a final action is taken. Unlike the three-
year ``runway'' allowed to reach attainment that the court found had 
been impermissibly denied to the state in Weld County, 72 F.4th at 293, 
the statute affords no such period following a SIP disapproval. CAA 
section 110(c)(1). The EPA need not wait a single day to promulgate a 
FIP upon issuing a disapproval of a SIP submission. EME Homer City, 489 
U.S. at 509. Nor is the EPA obligated to give states a second chance to 
submit a SIP before issuing a FIP. Id. Nonetheless, the states covered 
in this supplemental proposed rulemaking have been on notice since the 
issuance of the 2016v3 modeling and violating-monitor methodology in 
connection with the SIP Disapproval and Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
actions in winter of 2023 that they may be subject to a good neighbor 
FIP due to identified linkages with downwind receptors. 88 FR 36656. 
None of these five states has moved since that time to submit a revised 
SIP submission to address the relevant requirements.
    For consistency, the Agency similarly conducted its overcontrol 
analysis for this action using the 2023 and 2026 data (see section 
VI.D. of this document). The EPA recognizes that it is appropriate to 
provide sufficient lead time to allow sources in these five states to 
comply with the proposed requirements. Based on the compliance-timing 
analysis conducted in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan and applied 
here (as discussed in section VII. of this document), the dates 
proposed for the onset of these requirements for these five states fall 
after the 2023 and 2026 analytic years. This too is a matter of 
happenstance and does not justify a deviation from the definition of 
these states' good neighbor obligations. Similarly, assuming favorable 
outcomes in the ongoing litigation resulting in stays of the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan for several states pending judicial review, the EPA 
anticipates adjusting the timing of compliance obligations if these 
states are eventually made subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. 
These circumstances are analogous to an issue the EPA addressed in the 
final

[[Page 12679]]

Federal Good Neighbor Plan regarding the ability of individual sources 
to apply for and obtain compliance extensions. The EPA explained that 
where sources obtained such extensions, the EPA did not intend to 
conduct further analysis of whether those reductions were still 
required based on updated air quality analysis. As the EPA explained, 
the Agency did not think individual sources should gain the benefit of 
delaying emissions reductions simply in the hopes that they could show 
those reductions would be overcontrol. This would introduce an inter-
dependency into the analysis, whereas each source must be held to the 
elimination of its portion of significant contribution. Necessity, the 
EPA explained, may demand some additional amount of time for 
compliance, but equity demands that individual sources not gain an 
untoward advantage from delay and reliance on other sources' timelier 
compliance. See 88 FR at 36750 n.253. Thus, here, the EPA continues to 
conduct its overcontrol analysis using the common datasets for 2023 and 
2026, to ensure consistent and equitable determinations for what 
constitutes ``significant contribution'' even if the implementation of 
those emissions reductions may be delayed in certain states or for 
certain sources.
    Thus, the EPA proposes to continue to use its 2023 and 2026 
analytics, to ensure parity by holding all states to a consistent set 
of data in defining good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 
to avoid improperly shifting the burden of emissions reductions to 
other upwind and downwind states, and to provide for an efficient and 
administratively workable resolution of these remaining obligations for 
five additional states.
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    In Step 1, the EPA identifies monitoring sites that are projected 
to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023 
analytic year. This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of the 
terms ``nonattainment'' and ``maintenance'' as used in the good 
neighbor provision in the context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at 
9341-42. Where the EPA's analysis shows that a site does not meet the 
definition of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, the EPA excludes 
that site from further analysis under the EPA's 4-step interstate 
transport framework. At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport 
framework, the EPA considers those sites identified as a nonattainment 
or maintenance receptor in 2023 and identifies which upwind states 
contribute to those receptors above the contribution threshold.
    The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors in this action is the same as that used in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\58\ This approach gives independent 
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' 
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in 
North Carolina.\59\ To summarize this methodology:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668 for additional details on the EPA's evaluation 
nonattainment and maintenance receptor identification.
    \59\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-11 (holding that 
the EPA must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as those monitoring 
sites that are projected to have average design values that exceed the 
NAAQS and that are also measuring nonattainment based on the most 
recent monitored design values. This approach is consistent with prior 
transport rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined 
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that both measure 
nonattainment based on recent monitoring data (here, using certified 
2021 data to be consistent with the analysis in the Good Neighbor Plan) 
and that the EPA modeling projected to be in nonattainment in the 
analytic year (i.e., 2023).<SUP>60 61</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The 2021 design values were the most current official 
design values available for use in the 2016v3 modeling. The 2021 
ozone design values, by monitoring site, can be found in the file 
``Final GNP O3 DVs Contributions'', in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
    \61\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same concept, 
relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to define 
nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at 
25241, 25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d 
at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable the EPA's approach to defining 
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA identified a receptor to be a ``maintenance'' 
receptor for purposes of defining interference with maintenance, 
consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. 
Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136 
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).\62\ Specifically, the EPA 
identified maintenance receptors as those receptors that would have 
difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into 
account historical variability in air quality at that receptor. The 
variability in air quality was determined by evaluating the ``maximum'' 
future design value at each receptor based on a projection of the 
maximum measured design value over the relevant period. The EPA 
interprets the projected maximum future design value to be a potential 
future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology that yielded 
maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set analyzed for 
that receptor (i.e., ozone conducive meteorology). The EPA also 
recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions (e.g., 
dominant wind direction, temperatures, and air mass patterns) promoting 
ozone formation that led to maximum concentrations in the measured data 
may reoccur in the future. The maximum design value gives a reasonable 
projection of future air quality at the receptor under a scenario in 
which such conditions do, in fact, reoccur. The projected maximum 
design value is used to identify upwind emissions that, under those 
circumstances, could interfere with the downwind area's ability to 
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised 
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 
2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonattainment receptors are also, by definition, maintenance 
receptors, and so the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to 
refer to those receptors that are not nonattainment receptors. 
Consistent with the concepts for maintenance receptors, as described 
earlier, the EPA identifies ``maintenance-only'' receptors as those 
monitoring sites that have projected average design values above the 
level of the applicable NAAQS, but that are not currently measuring 
nonattainment based on the most recent official design values.\63\ In 
addition, those monitoring sites with projected average design values 
below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values above the 
NAAQS are also identified as ``maintenance-only'' receptors, even if 
they are currently measuring nonattainment based on the most recent 
official design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The Agency often uses the terms maintenance receptor and 
maintenance-only receptor interchangeably when discussing 
maintenance receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has looked closely at measured ozone levels at ambient 
monitoring sites in 2021 and 2022 for the purposes of informing the 
identification of potential additional receptors in 2023. As explained 
in more detail in the February 13, 2022, final

[[Page 12680]]

action disapproving 19 states' good neighbor SIP submissions, and 
partially approving and partially disapproving 2 states' good neighbor 
SIP submissions (``Disapproval action''), see 88 FR at 9349-50, the EPA 
finds there is a basis to consider certain sites with elevated ozone 
levels that are not otherwise identified as receptors to be an 
additional type of maintenance-only receptor given the likelihood that 
ozone levels above the NAAQS could persist at those locations through 
at least 2023. These are referred to as violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptors (violating-monitor receptors). In this action, the EPA 
proposes to use certified ambient monitoring data as an additional 
method to identify maintenance-only receptors. More specifically, 
violating-monitor receptors are monitoring sites with measured 2021 and 
2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high maximum daily average 8-
hour ozone concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, despite having model-
projected average and maximum design values for 2023 below the 
NAAQS.\64\ The EPA finds these sites are at continuing risk of failing 
to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which justifies categorizing these 
sites as maintenance-only receptors. By applying the criteria that 
certified 2021 and 2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high 
maximum daily average 8-hour ozone concentrations must all exceed the 
NAAQS the EPA gives due consideration to both measured air quality data 
and its modeling projections. This reasonably identifies monitoring 
sites as receptors in 2023 using this methodology. If sites do not meet 
these criteria, then the EPA could reasonably anticipate these sites to 
not have a problem maintaining the NAAQS in 2023 and should therefore 
not be considered receptors.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ A design value is calculated using the annual fourth-
highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration averaged over 3 
years.
    \65\ We also note that 2023 monitoring data is not yet 
certified, and further, because the Federal Good Neighbor Plan was 
in effect in several states during the 2023 ozone season (and 
sources may have otherwise voluntarily taken emissions-reduction 
measures consistent with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan either 
earlier than the effective date or in states where the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan was stayed), the 2023 monitoring data is less reliable 
for use in establishing an air quality baseline, i.e., one in the 
absence of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is not reopening its Step 1 methodologies or determinations 
in this action as to the 23 states included in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes to apply this same methodology to 
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Comments that are 
unrelated to or go beyond the application of these methodologies to 
these five states will be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    In Step 2 the contribution of each upwind State to each receptor in 
the 2023 analytic year is quantified. This approach reflects how the 
Agency gives meaning to the term ``contribute'' in the good neighbor 
provision in relation to the ``collective contribution'' problem posed 
by interstate ozone pollution. See 88 FR at 9342. The contribution 
metric used in Step 2 is defined as the average impact from each State 
to each receptor on the days with the highest ozone concentrations at 
the receptor based on the 2023 modeling. If a State's contribution 
value does not equal or exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS 
(i.e., 0.70 ppb for the 2015 ozone NAAQS), the upwind State is not 
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA, therefore, 
concludes that the State does not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the 
downwind states. However, if a State's average contribution equals or 
exceeds the 1 percent threshold, the EPA further evaluates the State's 
emissions in Step 3, considering both air quality and cost as part of a 
multi-factor analysis, to determine what, if any, emissions might be 
deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must be eliminated pursuant to the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    In this proposed action, the EPA relies in the first instance on 
the 1 percent threshold for the purpose of evaluating a State's 
contribution to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 
(i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind receptors. This is consistent with the 
Step 2 approach that the EPA applied in the Disapproval action and in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has acknowledged that states 
may have been able to justify use of a different threshold at Step 2. 
For reasons explained in section IV. of this document, no State 
included in this action successfully made this demonstration. In 
addition, the EPA explained in both the Disapproval action and in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan that the need for consistent treatment of 
all states counsels against recognizing alternative thresholds on a 
state-by-state basis. Based on its experience since the release of the 
August 2018 memorandum, the EPA has also determined, as explained in 
the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan, that it is not a 
good use of Agency resources nor is it wise policy for the EPA to 
attempt to justify the use of an alternative threshold on behalf of any 
State that failed to conduct an adequate analysis itself. Likewise, 
maintaining continuity across ozone NAAQS through consistent 
application of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold at Step 2 is appropriate, 
so that, as the NAAQS is revised and made more protective, the 
contribution threshold is correspondingly adjusted as well. See 88 FR 
at 36712-17; 88 FR at 9371-75. See also 86 FR at 23085 (use of 1 
percent threshold in the Revised CSAPR Update); 81 FR at 74518 (basis 
for use of 1 percent threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR 
Update); 76 FR at 48237-38 (original determination to use 1 percent 
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR).
    Therefore, application of a consistent contribution threshold is 
important to identify those upwind states that should have 
responsibility for addressing their contribution to the downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance problems to which they collectively 
contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent of the NAAQS as the screening 
metric to evaluate collective contribution from many upwind states also 
allows the EPA (and states) to apply a consistent framework to evaluate 
interstate emissions transport under the interstate transport provision 
from one NAAQS to the next and helps ensure that good neighbor 
obligations align with the stringency of the NAAQS.
    The issue of the appropriate contribution threshold to apply was 
thoroughly addressed in the Disapproval action and the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan rulemakings, and the EPA responded to numerous comments 
on this topic. The EPA is not reopening this issue in this action, 
except as to the question of whether there is any reason to regard the 
Step 2 contribution threshold differently for any of these five 
additional states. The Agency, however, sees no basis to do so.
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, the EPA 
further evaluates a State's emissions, in light of multiple factors, 
including air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if 
any, emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere 
with maintenance and, thus, must be eliminated under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of 
the phrases ``contribute significantly'' or ``interfere

[[Page 12681]]

with maintenance'' as used in the good neighbor provision in the 
context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at 9342-43.
    Under the EPA's longstanding approach to eliminating significant 
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, at 
Step 3, a multi-factor assessment of potential emissions controls would 
be conducted for states linked at Step 1 and 2. The EPA's analysis at 
Step 3 in prior Federal actions addressing interstate transport 
requirements has primarily focused on an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness of potential emissions controls (on a marginal cost-per-
ton basis), the total emissions reductions that may be achieved by 
requiring such controls (if applied across all linked upwind states), 
and an evaluation of the air quality impacts such emissions reductions 
would have on the downwind receptors to which a State is linked; other 
factors may potentially be relevant if adequately supported.
    The EPA has consistently applied this general approach to Step 3 
when identifying emissions contributions that the Agency has determined 
to be ``significant'' (or interfere with maintenance) in each of its 
prior Federal and regional ozone transport rulemakings, and this 
interpretation of the statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court. See 
EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While the EPA has not 
directed states that they must conduct a Step 3 analysis in precisely 
the manner the EPA has done in its prior regional transport 
rulemakings, State implementation plans addressing the obligations in 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ``any source or other type 
of emissions activity within the State'' from emitting air pollutants 
which will contribute significantly to downwind air quality problems. 
Thus, states must undertake an analysis similar to the EPA's analysis 
(or an alternative approach to defining ``significance'' that comports 
with the statute's objectives) to determine whether and to what degree 
emissions from a State should be ``prohibited'' to eliminate emissions 
that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere 
with maintenance of'' the NAAQS in any other state. See 88 FR at 9342-
43, 9375-76.
    In general, where the EPA's or state-provided alternative air 
quality and contribution modeling establishes that a State is linked at 
Steps 1 and 2, it will be insufficient at Step 3 for a State merely to 
point to its existing rules requiring control measures as a basis for 
SIP submission approval. In general, the emissions-reducing effects of 
all existing emissions control requirements are already reflected in 
the future year projected air quality results of the modeling for Steps 
1 and 2.
    If the State is shown to still be linked to one or more downwind 
receptor(s) despite these existing controls, but that State believes it 
has no outstanding good neighbor obligations, the EPA expects the State 
to provide sufficient justification to support a conclusion that the 
State has adequate provisions prohibiting ``any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in 
amounts which will'' ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or 
interfere with maintenance by,'' any other State with respect to the 
NAAQS. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the EPA has not 
prescribed a particular method for this assessment, the EPA expects 
states at a minimum to present a sufficient technical evaluation. This 
would typically include information on emissions sources, applicable 
control technologies, emissions reductions, costs, cost-effectiveness, 
and downwind air quality impacts of the estimated reductions, before 
concluding that no additional emissions controls should be 
required.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ As examples of general approaches for how such an analysis 
could be conducted for their sources, states could look to the CSAPR 
Update, 81 FR 74504, 74539-51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246-63; CAIR, 
70 FR 25162, 25195-229; or the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, 63 FR 57356, 
57399-405. See also Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086-23116. 
Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA has developed 
emissions inventories, analyzed different levels of control 
stringency at different cost thresholds, and assessed resulting 
downwind air quality improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in section III.A. in this document, the EPA and states 
must give independent significance to Prong 1 (significant contribution 
to nonattainment) and Prong 2 (interference with maintenance) when 
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\67\ The EPA gives effect to Prong 2 through 
identifying receptors that may have trouble attaining the NAAQS under 
varying air quality and meteorological conditions. EME Homer City 
upheld the EPA's approach to using cost to determine ``amounts'' with 
respect to both Prong 1 and 2. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 
U.S. at 518-520. The EPA's use of the term ``significant contribution'' 
in its analysis at the third step of the 4-step interstate transport 
framework is applied for both Prongs 1 and 2. This approach to giving 
effect to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong has been upheld 
twice by the D.C. Circuit. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at 136; 
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 325-27. In effect, the EPA's determination of 
what level of upwind contribution constitutes ``interference'' with a 
maintenance receptor is the same determination as what constitutes 
``significant contribution'' for a nonattainment receptor. Nonetheless, 
this continues to give independent effect to Prong 2 because the EPA 
applies a broader definition for identifying maintenance receptors, 
which accounts for the possibility of problems maintaining the NAAQS 
under realistic potential future conditions. While the EPA and others 
may occasionally use the language of ``significance'' as a shorthand 
for determinations at the third step under both Prongs 1 and 2, this 
does not detract from the fact that the EPA gives Prong 2 independent 
effect under the 4-step interstate transport framework. Alternative 
approaches to defining and prohibiting emissions that ``interfere with 
maintenance'' must be, like the EPA's approach, legally and technically 
justified and give effect to the language of the statute in a manner 
that ensures states' good neighbor obligations are defined in a 
consistent and equitable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir. 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in section IV.B. and V.A. of this document, no states 
whose SIP submissions the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove in 
this action conducted an adequate analysis at Step 3, following either 
the EPA's approach or an alternative approach. As explained in section 
I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VI. of this 
document, the EPA is proposing to apply the same Step 3 analysis and 
methodology completed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states 
to the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and 
Tennessee. The EPA's approach to Step 3 is explained in section 
III.B.1.c. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 88 FR 36654, at 36678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    At Step 4, states (or the EPA) develop permanent and federally-
enforceable control strategies to achieve the emissions reductions 
determined to be necessary at Step 3 to eliminate significant 
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 
NAAQS, as necessary to comply with the terms of the good neighbor 
provision requiring that SIPs (or FIPs) ``contain adequate provisions 
prohibiting'' such emissions. 88 FR at 9343. These control strategies

[[Page 12682]]

must be included in the State's SIP so that they are made permanent and 
federally enforceable. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP] 
shall . . . contain adequate provisions--prohibiting . . .''). See also 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 
1169, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by a 
State to meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP submission).
    As with the previous steps of the framework, as explained in 
section I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VII. of 
this document, in proposing FIPs for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, 
and Tennessee, the EPA is proposing to implement necessary emissions 
reductions through the same set of permanent and enforceable measures 
promulgated for 23 other states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The 
EPA's approach to Step 4 is explained in section III.B.1.d. of the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 88 FR 36654, at 36684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution 
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

A. SIP Summaries

1. Arizona
    On September 24, 2018, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the ``Arizona State Implementation 
Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for 
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``Arizona's 
2018 SIP Submission''). Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission addresses the 
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including the 
good neighbor provisions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for the 
2015 ozone NAAQS.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Letter dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy S. Franquist, 
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Submittal of the Arizona 
State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission describes the 4-step interstate 
transport framework established by the EPA to address the good neighbor 
provision.\71\ Arizona references the results of the ozone modeling 
completed by the EPA using CAMx version 6.40 and 2011 base year, made 
available in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by 
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step 
interstate transport framework. Arizona noted that the modeling results 
cited in the March 2018 memorandum demonstrate that Arizona is not 
shown to contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 
ppb) to any of the modeled nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 
other states.\72\ Despite asserting that ``Arizona still maintains that 
the one percent threshold is poorly suited for determining contribution 
obligations in the Southwestern US,'' Arizona relies on the 
contribution threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS at Step 2.\73\ Based 
on the model results cited in Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, Arizona 
finds that it does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors in other states and that it is not necessary to 
identify emissions reductions or adopt any permanent or enforceable 
controls under the interstate transport provision for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.\74\ Arizona also asserts that the Arizona SIP contains adequate 
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arizona will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other State in the future.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Arizona's 2018 SIP submission, 12.
    \72\ Id. at 13.
    \73\ Id.
    \74\ Id.
    \75\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
    On June 24, 2022, the EPA proposed to approve Arizona's 2018 iSIP 
Submission as meeting the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.\76\ Our proposed approval was based upon the conclusion that 
Arizona was not linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors, which was supported by the 2016v2 modeling described in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking for the proposed approval.\77\ In 
response to that proposed rulemaking, the EPA received one comment 
letter providing evidence to suggest that Arizona likely contributes 
significantly to interstate ozone pollution. The commenter alleged that 
the 2016v2 modeling arbitrarily omits Arizona contributions to monitors 
in El Paso County, Texas, and Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico, and 
that Arizona is likely to significantly contribute to ozone 
concentrations at these receptors. The commenter also incorporated by 
reference comments that the commenter submitted in response to the 
EPA's April 6, 2022, proposed FIP addressing regional ozone transport 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, identifying additional alleged flaws and 
omissions in the 2016v2 modeling.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022).
    \77\ 87 FR 37776, 37782.
    \78\ 87 FR 20036 (April 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA 
constructed its 2016v3 emissions platform to update ozone transport 
modeling in response to these and similar comments received on the 
2016v2 modeling and to develop the 2016v3 air quality modeling. The EPA 
also recognized that monitoring data for 2021 and 2022 supported 
recognizing additional, violating-monitor receptors. The EPA used this 
updated air quality analysis to inform its final Disapproval and 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan actions.<SUP>79 80</SUP> As described later 
in section IV.B.1. of this document, the 2016v3 modeling and violating-
monitor receptor methodology identifies Arizona's maximum contribution 
to numerous downwind maintenance receptors to be greater than 1 percent 
of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the latest 
available modeling indicates that Arizona is linked to downwind 
maintenance receptors, the EPA is now withdrawing its 2022 proposed 
approval of Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission with respect to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air 
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good 
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
    \80\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods 
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023 
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling 
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter 
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. New Mexico
    The EPA made a finding in 2019 that New Mexico had failed to submit 
a complete good neighbor SIP submission. See 84 FR 66612 (December 4, 
2019). This triggered the EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for New 
Mexico within 2 years. When the EPA failed to do so, multiple parties 
brought deadline-suit litigation against the Agency. This resulted in a 
consent decree deadline of June 1, 2024, to either promulgate a FIP for 
New Mexico or approve a SIP submission fully resolving New Mexico's 
good neighbor obligations. WildEarth Guardians v. Regan, No. 22-cv-
00174-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2022); Sierra Club v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv-
01992-JD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023). By stipulation of the parties, that 
deadline has now been extended to August 30, 2024. The EPA's duty to 
promulgate a FIP for New

[[Page 12683]]

Mexico can only be suspended by the approval of a SIP submission. As 
discussed in section IV.B. of this document, the EPA proposes to 
disapprove the SIP submission New Mexico subsequently submitted, 
described below. This disapproval, if finalized, would not alter or 
reset the EPA's pre-existing obligation to promulgate a FIP for New 
Mexico.
    On July 27, 2021, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 
submitted a SIP submission certifying that the State's SIP satisfies 
requirements of interstate transport of air pollution for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS. On June 9, 2021, on behalf of the City of Albuquerque 
Environmental Health Department (EHD), the Cabinet Secretary of NMED 
submitted to the EPA a certification that Albuquerque-Bernalillo 
County, and New Mexico as a whole, ``does not cause or contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in 
any other state.'' \81\ NMED and EHD's submission contained what NMED 
characterized as a weight of evidence analysis of New Mexico's 
contribution to ozone transport receptors using the data provided in 
the EPA's modeling results included as an attachment to the March 2018 
memorandum. New Mexico did not explicitly follow the 4-step interstate 
transport framework but did examine downwind air quality and New 
Mexico's contributions using the analytic year of 2023 to describe New 
Mexico's linkages to receptors. On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted a 
supplemental letter containing Exhibit A, for the EPA's consideration 
in the Agency's review of the NMED and EHD SIP submissions. The 
following sections describe NMED and EHD's submissions, including 
Exhibit A, and the information provided for each step in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See EHD SIP submission, attachment B, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
    For Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, NMED and 
EHD SIP submissions relied on the EPA's interstate transport modeling 
results that are included as an attachment to the March 2018 
memorandum.\82\ These EPA modeling results, using a 2011 base year, 
provided: (1) projected average design value and maximum design value 
for 2023 for ozone monitors to identify nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors and (2) projected average contribution from State emissions 
to the projected ozone concentrations at each ozone monitor to identify 
upwind state-to-downwind receptor linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ As explained in section IV.A.2.c., NMED's Exhibit A 
acknowledged the EPA's 2016v3 modeling results and linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
    NMED and EHD's submission presented New Mexico's projected 2023 
ozone contributions to maintenance and nonattainment receptors using 
the projections from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum. The State 
agencies state that in past rulemakings, the EPA has relied upon the 1 
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS standard (0.70 ppb) contribution 
threshold when evaluating if an upwind State has a ``potentially 
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with 
maintenance'' \83\ impacts air quality in a downwind state. New Mexico 
began their Step 2 analysis by using the EPA's 1 percent threshold to 
evaluate contribution and identified that the State contributes 1 
percent or more of the NAAQS to one maintenance receptor: Weld County 
Tower, Colorado (Monitor ID: 081230009), and one nonattainment 
receptor, Rocky Flats-N, Colorado (Monitor ID: 
080590006).<SUP>84 85</SUP> Additionally, the EPA's March 2018 
memorandum modeling indicated that upwind states contribute roughly 8 
and 10 percent of the modeled 2023 design value at the Weld County 
receptor and the Rocky Flats-N receptor, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ EHD's SIP submission Attachment B, page 7.
    \84\ Id. at Table 1, page 4.
    \85\ Id. at page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, NMED and EHD argue that New Mexico does not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at the 
Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N receptors. NMED and EHD assert that 
a ``weight of evidence'' analysis is more appropriate than relying on a 
single, national standard for identifying linkages and determining 
whether contributions from an upwind State are significant. NMED and 
EHD believe that New Mexico should not be linked to Colorado receptors 
in the EPA's transport Step 2 analysis because the majority of the 
contribution to these receptors comes directly from Colorado. NMED and 
EHD attempt to justify this position by relying on a previous transport 
rulemaking that determined certain monitoring sites in California were 
not interstate transport receptors. Specifically, New Mexico references 
the approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone transport SIP submission, see 81 
FR 31513. In that action, the EPA determined that Arizona did not 
significantly contribute to two California monitoring sites despite 
contributing more than 1 percent of the NAAQS, because the EPA found 
the total collective contribution from all upwind states was so low at 
these sites that they need not be considered transport receptors. New 
Mexico attempts to expand the application of the EPA's reasoning in the 
Arizona action, asserting it would also be appropriate not to link New 
Mexico, or the other linked upwind states, to the Colorado receptors at 
the 1 percent threshold.
    NMED and EHD's submission also claims that the relative share of 
in-state versus out-of-state contribution in Colorado, topographical 
influences on the transport of ozone in Colorado, and other air quality 
information support its ``weight-of-evidence'' analysis. To identify 
the portion of ozone levels in Colorado coming from in-state emissions 
as opposed to upwind-state emissions, New Mexico relied on the EPA's 
2018 memorandum modeling data. Based on this data, NMED and EHD 
determined in-state emissions outweighed the portion of emissions 
coming from upwind states collectively.
    NMED and EHD considered the topological influences on ozone 
concentrations in the Denver area based on information prepared by 
Colorado to support the final 2015 ozone NAAQS designation of the 
Denver area.\86\ NMED and EHD assert in their submissions that the 
receptors in Colorado are predominantly impacted from local sources and 
thus the minimal contributions from upwind states do not warrant 
further controls in New Mexico. They contend that the topography of the 
Denver nonattainment area (NAA) disproportionally favors the formation 
of ozone due to local emissions. As support for their argument, NMED 
and EHD point to the EPA's TSD supporting the designation of the Denver 
NAA: ``The three key circulation patterns (drainage flow, upslope flow, 
and mountain-plains solenoid circulation), in conjunction with the 
surface topography, in the [Denver] area serve to trap emissions and 
produce ozone in the basin formed by the surrounding higher elevation 
features. Further, these circulation patterns serve to recirculate 
prior day emissions into the Denver area population centers as the 
mountain-plains solenoid flow lifts the polluted atmosphere up the 
mountain slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the west in warm afternoons, 
and then returns the polluted air to the surface as the lofted air 
circulates back to the east and

[[Page 12684]]

subsides overnight.'' \87\ New Mexico presents this information to 
further support their claim that the Denver NAA is significantly more 
impacted by emissions from within Colorado than from interstate 
transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Id. at page 17. See also 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    \87\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/co_tsd_final_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMED and EHD's final weight of evidence factor consisted of an 
assessment of ozone air quality monitoring data and design values. 
Here, they identify downward trends in ozone precursor emissions 
(NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC) from 2005 to 2018. NMED and EHD cite New 
Mexico's current on-the-books rules as sufficient to resolve the 
State's transport responsibilities and as reason to believe downward 
trends in emissions and ozone concentrations at the receptors for which 
they contribute greater than 0.70 ppb (Rock Flats-N and Well County 
Tower monitors) will continue to decrease. NMED included data on an 
overall trend of slightly increasing VOC emissions and decreasing 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, and 
Texas from 2002 to 2014. New Mexico also provided data exhibiting a 
decrease of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from Colorado during the 
same time period. New Mexico credited the downward emissions trends to 
permanent and enforceable control measures. New Mexico made an argument 
that overall decreasing ozone concentrations and emissions trends in 
the state, and other upwind states, correlate with reduced 
contributions to nonattainment and maintenance receptors outside of New 
Mexico. NMED and EHD concluded that decreasing ambient ozone 
concentrations in Colorado is indicative of New Mexico contributing 
less to ozone in downwind states as time goes on.
    This concluded New Mexico's analysis in its original submission. 
New Mexico did not conduct an analysis of emissions-control 
opportunities within the State at Step 3. NMED and EHD concluded it 
would be unreasonable for New Mexico to take further actions to address 
its obligations under the good neighbor provisions for the ozone NAAQS. 
Thus, at Step 4, NMED and EHD determined that no additional permanent 
and enforceable measures were necessary to reduce the State's 
emissions.
c. New Mexico Letter
    On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted for the EPA's consideration a 
letter with an attachment, Exhibit A. The letter indicates its 
submission is in response to the EPA's indication that it may 
disapprove New Mexico's SIP submission. To the EPA's awareness, this 
letter was not subject to public notice or rulemaking process at the 
State level and does not in itself purport to be a SIP submission or a 
revision to New Mexico's SIP. As such, the EPA takes the information in 
the letter under advisement but does not consider this letter to be a 
new SIP submission in its own right or part of the SIP submission dated 
July 27, 2021.
    In its letter, NMED asserts the EPA should account for emissions 
reductions that have occurred since 2020 that could resolve the State's 
transport obligations. NMED identified emissions reductions from two 
current compliance orders that resulted in a reduction of 236 tons of 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. NMED entered into a settlement 
agreement with ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd (ETC) for its Jal #3 plant, 
compliance order No. AQB 20-63, which was lodged on August 25, 2021. 
The settlement agreement mandated that the facility remove its sulfur 
recovery unit, which resulted in an emissions reduction of 4.8 tons of 
NO<INF>X</INF> per year. Additionally, NMED entered into a consent 
decree with ETC for its Eunice Gas Plant, compliance order No. AQB 20-
64, which was lodged on September 9, 2021. The consent decree required 
the shutdown of the Eunice plant, except for Amanda Booster Station, 
resulting in emissions decrease of 231.4 tons of NO<INF>X</INF> per 
year. Lastly, NMED references emissions reductions anticipated from the 
consent decree lodged with Matador Production Company, filed on March 
27, 2023. NMED is anticipating emissions reductions of a total 77 tons 
of NO<INF>X</INF> over 3 years and to occur before 2030.
    NMED argues that the emissions reductions resulting from these 
compliance orders are satisfactory to fulfil the emissions reductions 
that would occur under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015 
Ozone Standard. NMED states that based on the formula applied under the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified 30 tons of emissions 
reductions achievable in 2023 under the current formula for EGU 
emissions reductions.\88\ NMED claims that the ``EPA indicated that 
this 30 ton per year reduction would be all that is necessary to meet 
its good neighbor FIP requirements.'' \89\ NMED argues that as the 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions decreases outlined in the provided consent 
decrees are greater than the emissions reductions anticipated in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the State will have met its obligations for 
interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule Technical 
Support Document. Table B-3. 2024 Ozone Season NO<INF>X</INF> 
Emissions for States at Different Uniform Control Scenarios.
    \89\ NMED's July 5, 2023, letter to the EPA, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Tennessee
    On September 13, 2018, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision 
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.<SUP>90 91</SUP> The SIP 
submission provided Tennessee's analysis of its impact to downwind 
states and concluded that emissions from the State will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Tennessee's submission 
relied on the EPA's modeling results for 2023 using a 2011 base year, 
contained in the March 2018, memorandum, to identify downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by 
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step 
interstate transport framework.\92\ The Tennessee Department of 
Environmental Control (TDEC) reviewed the EPA's 2023 modeling, 
concurred with the results, and determined that the EPA's future year 
projections were reasonable and account for source shutdowns, new 
controls, and fuel switches. TDEC summarized the State's upwind 
contribution to 26 nonattainment and maintenance receptors and noted 
that according to the modeling, Tennessee's largest impact on any 
potential downwind receptor in 2023 would be 0.31 ppb to a 
nonattainment receptor and 0.65 ppb to a maintenance receptor. 
Tennessee concluded that emissions from Tennessee do not contribute 
above 1 percent of the NAAQS or above 1 ppb at any receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The September 13, 2019, SIP submission provided by TDEC was 
received by the EPA on September 17, 2018.
    \91\ On September 18, 2018, Tennessee submitted multiple SIP 
revisions under one cover letter. The EPA is only acting on 
Tennessee's 2015 ozone good neighbor interstate transport SIP 
requirements in this document.
    \92\ The EPA notes that Tennessee's SIP submission is not 
organized around the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework for 
assessing good neighbor obligations, but the EPA summarizes the 
submission using that framework for clarity here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee's submission asserted that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are 
considered the primary cause of formation of ozone in the southeast 
United States, and emphasized a significant reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs and other large 
NO<INF>X</INF> sources leading to improvements in air quality, 
including reductions attributable to

[[Page 12685]]

previous transport rulemakings.\93\ Additionally, TDEC identifies 
existing SIP-approved provisions, Federal regulations and programs, 
court settlements, and statewide source shutdowns that TDEC believes 
limit ozone precursor emissions in the State.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The Tennessee SIP revision specifically cites the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program, CAIR, and CSAPR. In addition, 
the Tennessee SIP revision discusses Tennessee rule 1200-03-27-.12 
(NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call requirements for Stationary Boilers and 
Combustion Turbines), which had not been approved into the SIP at 
the time of the September 13, 2018, submission. The EPA finalized 
approval of TAPR 1200-03-27-.12 into the Tennessee SIP on March 2, 
2021. See 86 FR 12092.
    \94\ See page 9 through 12 of Tennessee's September 13, 2018, 
SIP submission for a list of SIP-approved State rules and Federal 
rules. This can be found in Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information contained in Tennessee's transport SIP 
submission, TDEC concluded that Tennessee does not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another 
State of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the SIP submission 
provides for adequate measures to control ozone precursor emissions.
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
    Previously, the EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13, 
2018, SIP submission, based on the contribution modeling provided in 
the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR 71854 (December 30, 2019). When 
the EPA completed updated modeling of the 2023 analytic year in 2020 
using a 2016-based emissions modeling platform (2016v1), however, it 
became evident that Tennessee was projected to be linked to downwind 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors.\95\ As a result, the EPA did 
not act on Tennessee's SIP submission when it published a supplemental 
proposal in 2021 to approve four other southeastern states' good 
neighbor SIP submissions, using the updated 2023 modeling. See 86 FR 
37942, 37943 (July 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for 
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update'', available 
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2016v2 modeling comported with the 2016v1 modeling results for 
Tennessee, in that it continued to show Tennessee was linked to at 
least one downwind-maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Based on this 
information and the EPA's evaluation of the information and arguments 
put forward by the State in its submission, the EPA withdrew its 
December 30, 2019, proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13, 2018, 
interstate transport SIP submission, and the EPA proposed disapproval 
of Tennessee's submission. See 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022).
    As described in section III.C. of this document, the EPA received 
numerous comments on the 2016v2 modeling used in its proposed ozone 
transport actions, including its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's 
submission. The EPA incorporated this feedback and made several updates 
to the 2016v2 inventories and model design to construct a 2016v3 
emissions platform, which the EPA used to develop the 2016v3 air 
quality modeling. The EPA used the 2016v3 modeling to support the final 
action on 21 interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.<SUP>96 97</SUP> The Agency also found there were additional 
receptors that would struggle to attain or maintain the NAAQS in 2023, 
which it identified as violating-monitor receptors. The final air 
quality analysis modeling indicated that while Tennessee was no longer 
projected in the modeling to be linked to any nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors, the State was linked above 1 percent of the 
NAAQS to five violating-monitor receptors, all located in Texas. See 
2016v3 AQM TSD, at C-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Disapproval Action, 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
    \97\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods 
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023 
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling 
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter 
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the EPA identified a linkage between emissions in 
Tennessee and violating-monitor receptors, in recognition that it had 
not included such receptors in its proposed action, the EPA did not 
take final action on Tennessee's transport SIP submission at that time. 
The EPA is now withdrawing its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's 
September 13, 2018, interstate transport SIP submission as published on 
February 22, 2022, at 87 FR 9545.

B. EPA Evaluation

    The EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions from Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee meet the states' obligations with respect to 
Prong 1, prohibiting emissions that contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but do not meet 
obligations with respect to Prong 2, interference with maintenance of 
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. This proposal is based 
on the EPA's evaluation of each State's SIP submission, considered in 
light of the state-of-the-science 2016v3 modeling for 2023 and 2026, 
the certified ozone monitoring data and design values for 2021 and 
2022, and corresponding contribution analysis. Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to partially approve with respect to Prong 1 and partially 
disapprove with respect to Prong 2 the SIP submissions from Arizona, 
New Mexico, and Tennessee.
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps 1 and 
2
    In Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission, the State cites the EPA modeling 
released in the March 2018 memorandum to conclude that Arizona does not 
contribute significantly (i.e., equal to or above the 0.70 ppb 
threshold) to any nonattainment or maintenance receptor in another 
state.\98\ In this proposal, the EPA relies on the Agency's 2016v3 
modeling, which uses a more recent base year and more up-to-date 
emissions inventories, compared to the modeling that was released in 
the March 2018 memo. The 2016v3 modeling along with the violating-
monitor receptor methodology are used to identify downwind receptors, 
calculate upwind contributions, and determine ``linkages'' to downwind 
air quality problems in 2023 using the 0.70 ppb threshold (i.e., 1 
percent of the NAAQS). As shown in Tables IV.B-1-3, the updated EPA 
contribution modeling identifies Arizona's maximum contribution to a 
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor to be greater than 1 
percent of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the 
entire technical basis for Arizona's determination with respect to CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its 2018 SIP Submission is that Arizona 
is not linked at Step 2, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove 
Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2, interference with 
maintenance, based on the EPA's finding that such a linkage does exist 
to maintenance-only receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP submission, 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for 
Arizona
    As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed 
air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to project 
design values and contributions for 2023 and 2026. These data were 
examined to determine if Arizona contributes at or above the threshold 
of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. As shown in Table IV.B-1, the 
data indicate that, in

[[Page 12686]]

2023, emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the 
2015 ozone NAAQS to six maintenance-only receptors in Colorado, Nevada, 
New Mexico, and Texas.\99\ Table IV.B.1-3 indicates that in 2023, 
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS 
to three violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in Nevada and New 
Mexico. Furthermore, data for 2026 in Table IV.B.1-2 indicate that 
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the 2015 
ozone NAAQS to five maintenance-only receptors in Colorado and New 
Mexico.\100\ In addition, Arizona's contribution exceeds 1 ppb at five 
receptors in 2023 and two receptors in 2026. Thus, whether Arizona 
could have sought to justify an alternative 1 ppb threshold is 
irrelevant to EPA's determination that Arizona is linked, as Arizona's 
contributions to receptors exceed even that higher alternative 
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in 
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
    \100\ Id.

                 Table IV.B.1-1--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2023 Average     2023 Maximum       Arizona
         Receptor ID               Location      Nonattainment/   design value     design value    contribution
                                                  maintenance         (ppb)           (ppb)            (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011.....................  Larimer,         Maintenance-               70.9             72.1            0.86
                                Colorado.        Only.
350130021....................  Do[ntilde]a      Maintenance-               70.8             72.1            1.04
                                Ana, New         Only.
                                Mexico.
350130022....................  Do[ntilde]a      Maintenance-               69.7             72.4            1.06
                                Ana, New         Only.
                                Mexico.
350151005....................  Eddy, New        Maintenance-               69.7             74.1            1.34
                                Mexico.          Only.
350250008....................  Lea, New Mexico  Maintenance-               69.8             72.2            1.66
                                                 Only.
481410037....................  El Paso, Texas.  Maintenance-               69.8             71.4            1.69
                                                 Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.


                 Table IV.B.1-2--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2026 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2026 Average     2026 Maximum       Arizona
         Receptor ID               Location      Nonattainment/   design value     design value    contribution
                                                  maintenance         (ppb)           (ppb)            (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011.....................  Larimer,         Maintenance-               70.0             71.2            0.71
                                Colorado.        Only.
350130021....................  Do[ntilde]a      Maintenance-               69.9             71.2            0.82
                                Ana, New         Only.
                                Mexico.
350130022....................  Do[ntilde]a      Maintenance-               69.0             71.6            0.82
                                Ana, New         Only.
                                Mexico.
350151005....................  Eddy, New        Maintenance-               69.1             73.4            1.06
                                Mexico.          Only.
350250008....................  Lea, New Mexico  Maintenance-               69.2             71.6            1.34
                                                 Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.


                           Table IV.B.1-3--Arizona 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Arizona
                Receptor ID                           Location              2021 Design     2022 Design    2021 4th high   2022 4th high   contribution
                                                                            value (ppb)     value (ppb)        (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
320030043.................................  Clark, Nevada...............              73              75              74              74            0.77
350011012.................................  Bernalillo, New Mexico......              72              73              76              74            1.62
350130008.................................  Do[ntilde]a Ana, New Mexico.              76              71              79              78            1.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.

    Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information 
submitted by Arizona, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling 
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA 
proposes to find that Arizona is not linked to any nonattainment 
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Arizona is linked at Steps 1 and 
2 to at least one, and in fact several, maintenance-only receptors, 
based on the available analytical information, which includes the 
modeling results from the 2016v3 platform and the violating-monitor 
receptor analysis.
c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
    To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be 
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further 
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost 
considerations. The EPA recognizes that the modeling results released 
with the March 2018 memorandum indicated Arizona would not contribute 
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any downwind receptor. Arizona's 
2018 SIP Submission therefore concluded that it was not necessary to 
identify any emissions reductions or adopt any permanent and 
enforceable controls to meet the good neighbor provision for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS.\101\ Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission states that ``Arizona 
believes that this SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air 
emissions in Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other 
State in the future.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, 13-14.
    \102\ Id at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as discussed previously in this section, the EPA's more 
recent air quality analysis for 2023 and 2026

[[Page 12687]]

indicates that sources in Arizona are in fact contributing to downwind 
air quality problems at several maintenance-only receptors. Based on 
this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its SIP contains 
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack justification, and the 
EPA proposes to partially disapprove the submission.
d. Conclusion
    For the reasons described in this section, the EPA proposes to 
partially approve Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to partially disapprove Arizona's 
SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
    As noted earlier, NMED and EHD first relied on the modeling 
information from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum which used a 2011 base 
period with 2011 meteorology to identify nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors and upwind-state contribution levels at those receptors. NMED 
and EHD acknowledged that this modeling showed a linkage to one 
nonattainment and one maintenance-only receptor in the Denver area at 
or above 0.70 ppb. Since the time of the State's submission, the EPA 
updated the modeling to a 2016 base period with 2016 meteorology and 
updated emissions data to produce new 2023 model projections and 
released this new modeling in 2022 (commonly referred to as 2016v2 
modeling platform). As explained in section III.C. of this document, in 
response to comments, the EPA further refined its modeling in the 
2016v3 modeling platform, issued in 2023.\103\ Under both the EPA's 
2011-based modeling included in the March 2018 memorandum that New 
Mexico relied upon in their SIP submission and the EPA's updated 2016v3 
modeling, there are receptors identified, to which New Mexico is linked 
above 1 percent of the NAAQS, as described in the next section.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
R08-OAR-2023-0375.
    \104\ The 2011 modeling relied on by NMED and EHD in the SIP 
submission identified linkages to one nonattainment receptor, the 
Rocky Flats-N receptor, and the one maintenance receptor, the Weld 
County Tower receptor, in 2023. See NMED SIP Submission at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
    As in Step 1, NMED and EHD relied upon the modeling released in the 
EPA's March 2018 memo, and in its July 2023 letter, NMED relied on the 
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results to analyze projected contributions to 
downwind receptors. As explained in section IV.A.2. of this document, 
while NMED and EHD acknowledge the EPA's modeling results identifying a 
contribution greater than 0.70 ppb, the agencies do not find it 
appropriate to rely on a particular threshold (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at Step 
2 to determine whether a State is linked (or significantly 
contributing) to a downwind receptor in the West, but instead they rely 
on a weight of evidence approach. NMED and EHD point to the EPA's past 
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone good neighbor SIP submission, in which 
the EPA approved Arizona's SIP based on an evaluation of receptors in 
California to support the use of a weight of evidence approach in 
evaluating interstate transport and claim that the EPA determined a 
weight of evidence approach to be an appropriate evaluation to apply in 
the West.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ NMED SIP submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although NMED and EHD's approach to evaluating whether an upwind 
State is linked to a downwind receptor differs from the EPA's broadly 
applied 4-step interstate transport framework by relying instead on a 
``weight of evidence'' approach, here, we evaluate that ``weight of 
evidence'' methodology NMED has chosen to apply. While the NMED and EHD 
submission does not claim to establish a linkage, and instead 
postulates that it is inappropriate to apply a uniform standard to 
determine whether a State's contributions should be further evaluated 
in Step 3, the submission does rely on a 1 percent threshold to 
identify which receptors to apply a weight of evidence analysis. 
Therefore, while the NMED and EHD submission seems to disagree in 
principle with the use of a single threshold at Step 2, they have 
effectively moved to apply the same threshold for the same purpose the 
EPA would do at Step 2--rely on a 1 percent threshold to identify 
receptors to which a State is linked and therefore require further 
evaluation at Step 3 to determine whether any of the State's 
contributions, if any, are significant.
    While the EPA does not disagree with the methodology NMED and EHD 
used in the submission to identify receptors where the State is linked, 
the EPA continues to find its 4-step interstate transport framework to 
be an appropriate and nationally consistent approach to evaluating 
interstate transport, including the application of a contribution 
threshold at Step 2 of the framework. As stated in the EPA's final SIP 
disapproval action, the EPA disagrees with the NMED and EHD submission 
that neither its nationwide photochemical grid modeling nor the 4-step 
interstate transport framework for ozone can generally be applied to 
states in the western region of the U.S., including contributions from 
sources in New Mexico, and has maintained that position consistently 
throughout numerous actions.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ For a discussion of this history, see for example 87 FR 
31480-81 (proposed disapproval of Utah SIP submission) and 87 FR 
31453-56 (proposed disapproval of California SIP submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NMED and EHD submission cites the EPA's action on Arizona's 
2008 ozone good neighbor SIP as evidence that the EPA relied on a 
weight of evidence approach when evaluating interstate transport in the 
West. In that action, the EPA considered the collective contribution 
from upwind states to monitoring sites in California as part of the 
basis for approval of the State's submission, despite linkages over 1 
percent from Arizona to a select few California monitoring sites. The 
EPA disagrees that New Mexico's contribution to Colorado is comparable 
to the situation addressed in the Arizona 2008 ozone good neighbor 
action. The facts that supported the EPA's conclusion on Arizona's 2008 
ozone good neighbor SIP were unique; in the Disapproval action and 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA has already explained that it 
rejects that a comparable consideration is relevant for receptors in 
Colorado, which the EPA has consistently found are impacted by the 
collective contribution of numerous upwind states at levels that well 
exceed the circumstances of the California sites. See 88 FR at 9378-79 
(western State policy generally); id. at 9360 (rejecting similar 
arguments in disapproving SIP submission from Utah); see also Response 
To Comments Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, at 236-237. At times the 
EPA has found it appropriate to examine more closely discreet issues 
for some western states; \107\ however, the EPA has consistently 
applied the 4-step interstate transport framework in western states, as 
it proposes to do in this action, and

[[Page 12688]]

has previously identified ozone transport problems in the West, 
including in Colorado, that are similar to those in the east.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See, e.g., 87 FR 61249, 61254-55 (October 11, 2022) (in 
approving Colorado's interstate transport SIP for the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS, analyzing unique issues associated with wintertime inversion 
conditions in certain western areas).
    \108\ See, e.g., 87 FR 31443, 31453-57 (May 24, 2022); 83 FR 
65093, 65094 (December 19, 2018); 82 FR 9155, 9157 (February 3, 
2017); 82 FR 9142, 9149-50 (February 3, 2017); 81 FR 74504, 74523 
(October 26, 2016); 81 FR 71991, 71993-95 (October 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Mexico claims that the Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N 
receptors are impacted by the same magnitude of contributions from 
interstate transport as the California receptors were in the approval 
of the Arizona transport SIP submission. This, however, is not 
represented in the data presented in NMED and EHD's submittals. Total 
upwind contributions were 10 percent and 8 percent of the projected 
2023 design values at the Rocky Flats-N and Weld County Tower 
receptors, respectively, and five states were determined to be linked 
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS. The results show that the upwind 
contributions to Colorado are significantly greater than the upwind 
contributions to the monitors evaluated in California when taking 
action on Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP submission, where the total 
contribution from all upwind states was 2.5 percent and 4.4 percent of 
the total ozone concentration at the two monitoring sites in California 
to which Arizona contributed greater than 1 percent.
    The determination made to remove the identified California 
receptors from the Step 1 analysis, done in the context of the less 
protective 2008 ozone NAAQS, was a narrow circumstance that does not 
apply in the vast majority of receptors outside of California. The data 
presented by New Mexico suggests the circumstances that led the EPA to 
remove California receptors from Step 1 do not apply to receptors in 
Colorado. In previous rulemakings, for example, the EPA has, in fact, 
determined that receptors in Colorado are heavily impacted by upwind-
state contribution. See, e.g., 82 FR 9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81 FR 71991 
(October 19, 2016). The EPA affirms, contrary to NMED's assertion, that 
the Colorado receptors that NMED analyzed are impacted by upwind State 
contributions.\109\ In fact, nowhere outside California do we project 
that there will be receptors having such a low total upwind 
contribution as is the case for California.\110\ Further, at the El 
Paso UTEP receptor (Monitor ID: 481410037) which, as shown in Table 
IV.B.2-1, is the receptor to which emissions from sources in New Mexico 
are linked, there are 2 states linked above 1 percent of the standard 
and 6 percent of the ozone design values is due to the collective 
contribution from upwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
    \110\ See 88 FR at 36718 regarding contribution to certain 
monitoring sites in California and its relation to the EPA's 
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS transport SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for New 
Mexico
    As described in section I. of this document, the EPA has performed 
updated air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to 
project design values and contributions for 2023. These data were 
examined to determine if the newer modeling also indicated that New 
Mexico contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the 2015 
ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance 
receptor. As shown in IV.B.2-1, the data \111\ indicates that in 2023, 
emissions from New Mexico contribute greater than 1 percent of the 
standard to a maintenance-only receptor in El Paso, Texas.\112\ New 
Mexico is not linked to any violating-monitor receptors in 2023. Based 
on the 2016v3 modeling, the average and maximum design values for the 
El Paso monitor in 2026 are below the level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In 
this regard, New Mexico is not projected to be linked to any receptors 
in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring 
sites nationwide are provide in the file:'' 2016v3_Final 
FIP_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx'' which is included in docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
    \112\ These modeling results are consistent with the results of 
a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 2016v1 emissions platform 
which became available to the public in the fall of 2020 in the 
Revised CSAPR Update, as noted in section I. of this document. That 
modeling showed that New Mexico had a maximum contribution greater 
than 0.70 ppb to at least one nonattainment or maintenance-only 
receptor in 2023. These modeling results are included in the file 
``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'' 
in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.

                               Table IV.B.2-1--New Mexico Linkage Results Based on the EPA's Updated 2016v3 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2023 Average     2023 Maximum     New Mexico
                Receptor ID                            Location              Nonattainment/maintenance    design value     design value    contribution
                                                                                                              (ppb)           (ppb)            (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481410037..................................  El Paso, TX.................  Maintenance.................            69.8             71.4            1.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information 
submitted by NMED and EHD, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling 
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA 
proposes to find that New Mexico is not linked to a nonattainment 
receptor. However, the EPA finds that New Mexico is linked at Steps 1 
and 2 to a maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Therefore, the EPA will 
proceed to evaluate NMED and EHD's SIP submission at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework as it pertains to Prong 2, 
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
    To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be 
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further 
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost 
considerations. NMED and EHD's initial SIP submission did not conduct 
an analysis of emissions control opportunities within the state, 
applying either the EPA's multifactor analysis at Step 3 or using any 
other framework of analysis. Instead, the submission presents a three-
part ``weight of evidence'' analysis to determine no reductions are 
needed beyond existing emissions reductions efforts to satisfy the 
State's obligations with regards to the good neighbor provision.
    NMED's July 2023 letter uses mass-based emissions reductions 
identified on an ozone-season wide basis derived from the Step 3 (and 
Step 4 analysis for EGUs) completed by the EPA in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan to identify the magnitude of emissions that NMED assumes 
constitutes the identification of ``significant contribution'' that 
must be eliminated to address the State's good

[[Page 12689]]

neighbor obligations. NMED's letter asserts that certain compliance 
orders entered in recent years would achieve an equivalent or greater 
amount of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reduction (on a mass-basis) than the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is projected to require from EGUs in New 
Mexico.
    In this section, we evaluate the State's weight of evidence 
analysis submitted in the SIP submission, and then in the following 
section (Section IV.B.2.e of this document) address the argument put 
forward by NMED in the July 2023 letter.
    As summarized in section IV.A.2. of this document, NMED and EHD's 
weight of evidence consisted of three parts, (1) a comparison of in-
state emissions contributions and out-of-state contributions to the 
receptors with linkages from New Mexico, (2) consideration of 
topography and airflow associated with local ozone formation in the 
Denver area, and (3) an evaluation of trends in emissions and ozone 
concentrations at receptors with linkages and western states.
    Regarding the first weight of evidence comparing in-state and out 
of State emissions, the EPA disagrees that these factors are sufficient 
to establish that New Mexico's emissions do not significantly 
contribute to receptors in any other state. While NMED and EHD point to 
a relatively higher level of contributions from non-anthropogenic, 
local, or international contributions in the West as reason for 
evaluating interstate transport differently in the West, a State is not 
excused from eliminating its significant contribution due to 
contributions from these sources, where the data show that 
anthropogenic emissions from upwind states also contribute to 
identified receptors at levels that indicate an interstate contribution 
problem as well. As stated in section V.C.2. of the EPA's final SIP 
Disapproval action, a State is not excused from eliminating its 
significant contribution on the basis that international emissions also 
contribute some amount of pollution to the same receptors to which the 
State is linked. This same principle applies broadly to other arguments 
as to which emissions are the ``cause'' of the problem; the good 
neighbor provision established a contribution standard, not a ``but-
for'' causation standard. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323-25. The EPA's 
position on this issue is established in the SIP Disapproval action. 
See 88 FR at 9378 (rejecting this argument as to international 
contribution); Disapproval action RTC at 455-58 (rejecting this 
argument as to in-state contribution); id. at 459-62 (rejecting this 
argument as to non-anthropogenic contribution). Nor did New Mexico 
offer a test or standard by which these considerations could be applied 
on a principled basis to establish when, if they were relevant 
considerations, they would justify a different approach for any 
particular state. New Mexico only argued that these considerations 
should excuse its own obligations.
    The submission's second weight of evidence factor considers the 
Denver area's topography and air flow direction. The EPA has evaluated 
the information in the submission and proposes to determine that this 
evidence does not provide sufficient reason to support NMED and EHD 
submission's conclusion that the contributions from New Mexico to the 
receptors identified by the EPA's modeling is not significant. The NMED 
and EHD submission claims that the EPA had concluded that geographical 
features (mountains, etc.) in and around the Denver NAA ``magnify and 
constrain the influence of local emissions on air quality'' and ozone 
production by citing the EPA's description of the region in the EPA's 
designation of the Denver NAA for the 2015 ozone standard.
    The EPA evaluated this argument thoroughly in the SIP Disapproval 
action. The EPA explained, despite the local geographical features in 
and around the Denver NAA substantial portion of the transport problem 
at these receptors, on the order of 6-10 percent (depending on 
individual receptor and modeling version used) is the result of 
transport from states outside of Colorado. The EPA evaluated the 
performance of its 2016v3 modeling in all areas of the country, 
including in Colorado and in the southwest (where New Mexico is linked 
to an El Paso receptor), and the Agency found the modeling performed 
within parameters and is reliable for use to inform determinations of 
contribution, even in areas of unique western topography. See RTC 171-
184. These same findings hold true for New Mexico's linkage, whether 
assessed in relation to its contribution to Colorado receptors in the 
2011-based modeling, or in the linkage to El Paso found in 2016v3 
modeling.
    The third weight of evidence provided in the SIP consists of 
monitoring data and emissions data to justify their conclusion that no 
additional emissions reductions would be necessary to satisfy New 
Mexico's ozone transport obligations.
    The NMED and EHD submission points to a projected downward trend of 
ozone levels at monitors within the Colorado nonattainment area from 
2008 to 2018, and VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions from 2002 
to 2014 in states contributing above 1 percent of the NAAQS to the Weld 
County or Rocky Flats-N receptors. The submission did not quantify the 
total anticipated reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions from 
New Mexico's existing regulatory requirements nor did it evaluate the 
impact of those reductions in downwind air quality at the Denver area 
receptors to which New Mexico was projected to be linked in the 2011-
based modeling. In general, the air quality modeling that the EPA has 
conducted already accounts for ``on-the-books'' emissions control 
measures, including the expected reductions those measures achieve 
through 2023. The 2016v3 modeling, which contains updated emissions 
inventories for New Mexico and other states, established a continued 
linkage from New Mexico to at least one downwind receptor in 2023 at 
Steps 1 and 2, despite emissions control efforts in the State.\113\ 
Applying the submission's same logic in this weight of evidence to the 
linkage identified in the EPA's 2016v3 modeling, the El Paso County, 
Texas, receptor, the EPA identifies a similar flaw. Because a linkage 
continues to occur under projected baseline emissions levels, the next 
analytical step would be to conduct an analysis of emissions control 
opportunities in the State to determine what, if any, emissions may 
constitute ``significant contribution'' and therefore should be 
prohibited. The EPA explained in the SIP Disapproval action that an 
alternative approach of simply relying on emissions trends data, 
without including those claimed reductions as enforceable control 
measures within a SIP, is insufficient. 88 FR at 9354, 9356, 9378-79; 
Response To Comments at 329-33. Similarly, emissions trends do not 
themselves provide a principled basis for determining what ``amount'' 
of emissions constitutes ``significant contribution.'' See 88 FR at 
9375-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ As the EPA explained in the final SIP Disapproval action, 
the EPA views changes in linkages between 2011-based meteorology and 
2016-based meteorology not as an indication of uncertainty in 
whether a State is linked at Step 2 but rather as confirmation that 
the State's emissions are substantial enough to generate linkages 
under alternative meteorological data sets. As such, the changes in 
linkage observed between the 2011-based and 2016v3 modeling for New 
Mexico does not alter the EPA's findings or justify a less rigorous 
analysis at Step 3--just as the EPA found for many other states in 
connection with the Disapproval action. See 88 FR at 9367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this evaluation of the weight of evidence analysis 
provided in NMED and EHD's SIP submission, the EPA finds that the 
analysis is insufficient to support the conclusion that the State

[[Page 12690]]

does not interfere with maintenance at receptors in other states. The 
EPA's updated air quality analysis indicates New Mexico is not linked 
to any nonattainment receptors but is linked to a maintenance-only 
receptor in El Paso, Texas. Thus, the EPA proposes partial disapproval 
of New Mexico's submission with respect to Prong 2.
e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
    The EPA has considered the additional information New Mexico 
provided in its July 2023 letter. At the outset, we note that this 
letter did not undergo the requisite public rulemaking process at the 
State level, so the EPA does not consider it to be either a SIP 
submission itself or a supplement to New Mexico's existing submission. 
See CAA section 110(a)(1), (2) (requiring public notice and hearing 
requirements before SIP revisions may be submitted to EPA); id CAA 
section 110(i) (prohibiting modifications of SIP requirements except as 
conducted pursuant to mandated SIP revision procedures); id. CAA 
section 110(l) (mandating analysis of all SIP revisions to ensure such 
revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirements under the 
Act). See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart F (setting forth minimum 
procedural requirements for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of 
implementation plans, including requirements of public notice and 
hearing); id. Appendix V, section 2 (setting forth administrative 
completeness criteria for State plan submissions including evidence of 
compliance with procedural requirements). However, the letter was 
provided to the EPA prior to this proposed document and the EPA has had 
time to consider its contents; the EPA in its discretion will provide 
its views on the relevance of the information contained in the letter.
    In the letter, NMED explains that it believes the emissions 
reductions required under certain compliance orders in New Mexico 
applicable to several identified facilities will achieve greater 
emissions reductions than what would be achieved for New Mexico's EGU 
sources if those sources were subject to the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan. NMED asserts that the EPA identified in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan that the control requirements for EGUs would achieve roughly 30 
tons of ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions on an annual 
basis through the strategies of SCR and SNCR optimization and upgrade 
of combustion control requirements at qualifying EGUs. In the letter, 
NMED identified 236 tons of already established annual NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions due to two compliance orders lodged in 2021 that 
it claims had not been reflected in the EPA's 2016v3 emissions 
platform, and an additional 77 tons of emissions reductions across 3 
years from a consent decree with Matador Production Company.\114\ 
According to NMED, because these reductions are greater than the 
reductions that would be achieved under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 
there is no need to issue a FIP for New Mexico, since these other 
measures have already eliminated a greater mass-based quantity of 
emissions than the EPA found needed to eliminate significant 
contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ NMED's July 5, 2023 letter, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency acknowledges and applauds the efforts to enforce air 
pollution control requirements and the reductions in ozone-precursor 
emissions that are claimed to be achieved under these orders. However, 
the information in this letter does not lead the EPA to a different 
conclusion with respect to the approvability of New Mexico's interstate 
transport SIP submission. In addition to the fact that the letter is 
not a formal SIP submission, the EPA does not believe the information 
contained in the letter (even if it were a SIP submission) is 
sufficient to allow the EPA to conclude that New Mexico would satisfy 
its obligations to eliminate significant contribution either at Step 2 
or Step 3. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to further discuss with New 
Mexico the content of a future SIP revision that would satisfy these 
obligations.
    Regarding the existence of a linkage at Step 2, although the letter 
asserts these reductions are additional to those reflected in the 
emissions inventories used in the 2016v3 modeling, this conclusion is 
not clearly supported. The emissions inventories used in the modeling 
reflected a specific methodology for calculating and projecting ozone-
precursor emissions from the oil and gas sector in New Mexico and 
particularly in the Permian Basin. See Disapproval Action RTC at 117. 
The reductions that may be achieved at the particular facilities under 
compliance orders New Mexico cites do not necessarily establish that 
those emissions projections, including growth factors, used in the 
EPA's modeling for the oil and gas sector are unreliable. (In this 
regard, the EPA does not view the information in the letter as 
undercutting its determinations at Steps 1 and 2.)
    Briefly, some additional concerns that the EPA has identified with 
the approach suggested in New Mexico's letter include: (1) all new 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reduction measures would need to be adopted 
into the SIP; \115\ (2) any assessment of emissions reductions would 
likely need to be in terms of the ozone season of May 1 through 
September 30 rather than annual reductions and would need to be 
established consistent with a relevant baseline date and compliance 
date; \116\ and (3) the approach would need to account for the impact 
of not placing additional NO<INF>X</INF> limitations on EGU sources in 
determining the amount of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that New Mexico's 
SIP needs to reduce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The EPA made this requirement clear in its SIP Disapproval 
action. See 88 FR at 9343, 9376. In its letter, NMED has not 
indicated its intent to incorporate these orders and the 
commensurate NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions into their SIP.
    \116\ As such, the information in NMED's letter is inadequate to 
establish that these orders achieve an equivalent amount of 
emissions reduction to eliminate significant contribution as the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan would in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency recognizes that states may replace a FIP with a SIP and 
the emissions controls in that SIP may differ from those the EPA 
selected in its FIP. See section VI.C. of this document. However, the 
mere existence of the compliance orders identified by NMED does not 
substitute for a Step 3 analysis and is insufficient in itself to 
support a conclusion that New Mexico has resolved its good neighbor 
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Though there is not a single, 
prescribed method for how a State may conduct a Step 3 analysis, the 
EPA has consistently applied Step 3 of the good neighbor framework for 
ozone through a far more comprehensive evaluation of potential 
additional control technologies or measures, on industry-wide bases, 
than what New Mexico provided in its submission. Identifying various 
emissions control measures at specific units that have been enacted at 
the State level, is not analytically sufficient. And as explained 
above, the EPA has identified several additional concerns. First, as a 
replacement for the emissions control strategy that the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan would implement at Step 4 in New Mexico, the letter is 
insufficient to demonstrate equivalence. Second, as noted above, these 
measures have not been included as a revision to New Mexico's SIP and 
submitted for EPA's approval.
f. Conclusion
    The EPA is proposing to find that the portion of NMED's July 27, 
2021 and EHD's June 9, 2021, SIP submission addressing Prong 2 of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with

[[Page 12691]]

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, does not meet the State's 
interstate transport obligations, because it fails to contain the 
necessary provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with 
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally, 
the EPA proposes to partially approve these submissions with respect to 
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant 
contribution to nonattainment.'' The EPA in its discretion has 
considered the information in NMED's July 2023 letter but for the 
reasons explained in section IV.B.2.d. of this document, finds this 
information would not alter its conclusions as to New Mexico.
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 1
    At Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee 
relied on the EPA's 2011-based modeling included in the March 2018 
memorandum to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2023. 
As described previously in section III.C. of this document, the EPA has 
updated this modeling (2016v3) using the most current and technically 
appropriate information and has used that information, along with its 
violating-monitor receptor identification methodology, to determine the 
final good neighbor obligations for 23 other states. To ensure parity 
among states, the EPA proposes to rely on this air quality analysis to 
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 2023 analytic 
year.
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 2
    At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee 
relied on the 2011-based modeling released in the March 2018 memorandum 
to identify upwind State linkages to nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors in 2023. As described in section III.C. of this document, the 
EPA has updated its air quality analytics (2016v3 modeling coupled with 
monitoring data to inform identification of violating-monitor 
receptors) to identify upwind State contributions to nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors in 2023. In this proposal, to ensure parity among 
states, the EPA relies on this set of analytics to identify upwind 
contributions (``linkages'') to downwind air quality problems in the 
2023 analytic year using a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS. See 
section III.D.3. of this document for explanation of the use of 1 
percent of the NAAQS. This set of analytical data establishes that 
Tennessee is linked to violating-monitor receptors in 2023 in Dallas 
County, TX. as shown in Table IV.B.3-1, Tennessee's maximum 
contribution to a violating-monitor receptor is 0.86 ppb which is 
greater than 1 percent of the ozone standard (i.e., 0.70 ppb). 
Therefore, Tennessee is linked to a downwind air quality problem at 
Steps 1 and 2. Because the entire technical basis for Tennessee's 
submission is that the State is not linked at Step 2, but the state-of-
the-science analytics used to address all other states' obligations 
establishes that this is not correct, the EPA proposes to partially 
disapprove Tennessee's SIP submission based on the EPA's finding that 
Tennesse contributes above the threshold to at least one maintenance-
only receptor in another state.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ To the extent the Tennessee submittal included information 
regarding emissions controls that could be interpreted as relevant 
to a Step 3 analysis, the EPA evaluates that information in Section 
IV.C.3.d of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's air quality analytics indicate that Tennessee is not 
linked to any model-projected nonattainment receptors above 1 percent 
of the NAAQS. As a result, no further evaluation of the State's 
emissions (i.e., multifactor analysis, including air quality and cost 
considerations emissions analysis) are required with respect to Prong 1 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. This comports with the 
State's conclusions with regards to Prong 1, and therefore, the EPA 
proposes to partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission regarding 
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant 
contribution to nonattainment.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Tennessee's largest impact on any modeled-projected 
downwind nonattainment and maintenance-only receptor are 0.60 ppb 
and 0.68 ppb, respectively. These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one 
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee references a 1 ppb threshold in its submission, citing 
the EPA's Significant Impact Level (SIL) Guidance as justification for 
the use of a 1 ppb threshold. The EPA explained in the final SIP 
Disapproval action that the SIL Guidance cannot be relied upon to 
justify an alternative threshold at Step 2 of the interstate transport 
framework for ozone. See 88 FR at 9372. The Agency is adopting that 
same position in relation to Tennessee's attempted reliance.
c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for 
Tennessee
    As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed 
updated air quality modeling (2016v3) to project design values and 
contributions for 2023. These data were examined to determine if 
Tennessee contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the 
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or 
maintenance-only receptor. Based on the EPA's modeling results, 
Tennessee is not linked to a model-identified nonattainment or 
maintenance receptor in 2023 or 2026. However, as shown in Table 
IV.B.3-1, the data \119\ indicates that in 2023, emissions from 
Tennessee contribute greater than 1 percent of the standard to five 
violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in the Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington, Texas Core Based Statistical Area.<SUP>120 121</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in 
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
    \120\ The EPA developed the violating-monitor approach in 
response to comments on the 2016v2 modeling received on the proposed 
Disapproval action and FIP. In this regard, EPA did not identify 
violating-monitors in the contribution data associated with the 
2016v1 and 2016v3 modeling.
    \121\ As noted in section III.D.2. of this document, a 
violating-monitor receptor is not projected to have a maximum 
projected design value of 71 ppb or greater in 2023 based on the 
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results. Therefore, the receptors identified 
in Table IV.B.3-1 have both average and maximum projected design 
values below 70 ppb.

                             Table IV.B.3-1--Tennessee Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2021 Design     2022 Design    2021 4th high   2022 4th high   Contribution
                Receptor ID                           Location              value (ppb)     value (ppb)        (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481130075.................................  Dallas County, TX...........              71              71              73              72            0.86
481211032.................................  Denton County, TX...........              76              77              85              77            0.77
484392003.................................  Tarrant County, TX..........              72              72              74              72            0.74
480850005.................................  Collin County, TX...........              75              74              81              73            0.74
484390075.................................  Tarrant County, TX..........              75              76              76              77            0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12692]]

    Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information in 
Tennessee's SIP submission considering the modeling results for 2023 
and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform and monitoring data used 
to inform the identification of violating-monitor receptors, the EPA 
proposes to find that Tennesse is not linked to a nonattainment 
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Tennessee is linked at Steps 1 
and 2 to at least one maintenance-only receptor in another state.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tennessee Regarding Step 3
    To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be 
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further 
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost 
considerations. Tennessee did not conduct a Step 3 analysis in its SIP 
submission because at the time, the EPA's modeling indicated the State 
was not linked above 1 percent of the NAAQS to a projected downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. However, based on the EPA's 
updated air quality analytics, which the EPA has used to make final 
determinations for all other states, the State is currently linked to 
at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-only receptor. To 
ensure consistency and equity across all states in addressing good 
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is evaluating 
the SIP submission in the context of this same set of air quality 
analytics. Tennessee's SIP submission does not analyze total ozone 
precursors that continue to be emitted from sources and other emissions 
activity within the State, evaluate the emissions reduction potential 
of any additional controls using cost or other metrics, nor evaluate 
any resulting downwind air quality improvements that could result from 
such controls. Instead, Tennessee's submission includes a list of 
existing emissions control programs and measures in the State. However, 
the EPA's modeling already takes account of such measures. Despite 
these existing emissions controls, the State is linked above 1 percent 
of the NAAQS to at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptor.
    Based on this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its 
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with 
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack 
justification. Thus, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove 
Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS.
e. Conclusion
    The EPA proposes to partially disapprove the State's SIP submission 
with respect to Prong 2 regarding ``interference with maintenance'' of 
the good neighbor provision. Additionally, the EPA proposes to 
partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of 
the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant contribution to 
nonattainment.''

C. Proposed SIP Action

    The EPA is proposing to partially disapprove the portions of SIP 
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to 
interstate transport of air pollution that will interfere with 
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Under CAA 
section 110(c)(1), disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for 
the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to 
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport 
requirements pertaining to interference with maintenance of the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do in this 
action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets these 
requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not start 
a mandatory sanctions clock. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to 
partially approve the portions of SIP submissions from Arizona, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to interstate transport of air 
pollution that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states.
    As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this 
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the 
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions 
reductions that are required for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to 
satisfy their good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 
analysis on which the EPA proposes this conclusion for these three 
states is the same, nationally consistent analytical framework on which 
the Agency proposes FIP action for Kansas and Iowa in this proposed 
action (see section V.A. of this document), as well as for the 23 
states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor Plan.

V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for this Action

A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP Submissions From 
Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP Authority for Iowa and 
Kansas

    In 2022, the EPA approved infrastructure SIP submissions from Iowa 
and Kansas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which in part addressed the good 
neighbor provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\122\ The EPA 
concluded that, based on the 2016v2 modeling, which was the latest 
modeling results available at the time the EPA took action, the largest 
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor 
from each of these states was less than 1 percent of the NAAQS.\123\ As 
a result, the EPA found that neither Iowa nor Kansas would 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
in any other state.\124\ Therefore, the EPA approved the portion of 
each State's infrastructure SIP submission that addressed CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4, 
2022) (Kansas).
    \123\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document 2015 
Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP Proposed Actions'', available in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \124\ Id. at 17. Based on the 2023 modeling from the Proposed 
AQM TSD, Iowa was expected in 2023 to have a 0.64 ppb impact on a 
potential nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site 
ID 550590019) and a 0.58 ppb impact at a potential maintenance 
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310032). Kansas was 
expected in 2023 to have a 0.49 ppb impact on a potential 
nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site ID 
550590019) and a 0.060 ppb impact at a potential maintenance 
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the release of the 2016v2-based modeling and EPA's 
approval of Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP 
submission, the EPA performed updated modeling in response to comments 
received on other good neighbor proposals in 2022, as described in 
section III.C. of this document. Additionally, as described in section 
III.D.2. of this document, the EPA updated its definition of a 
maintenance receptor in recognition of comments and other information 
highlighting measured ozone levels continuing to exceed the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS at many monitoring sites throughout the country. The approach 
adopted in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan now takes into greater 
consideration monitoring data to determine whether a violating 
monitoring site will struggle to maintain

[[Page 12693]]

the NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year. The EPA used this new, unified set 
of air quality analytics to inform its determinations of the 
obligations of all other states. Iowa and Kansas have SIP approvals in 
place that are inconsistent with that common set of information used 
for other states, including those states that are linked to the same 
receptors to which Iowa and Kansas are now shown to be linked in 2023. 
As such, the approvals were in error under CAA section 110(k)(6).
    Based on this updated air quality modeling and considering 
contributions to violating-monitor receptors, both Iowa and Kansas are 
now projected to contribute more than 1 percent of the NAAQS to 
downwind receptors. Specifically, as shown in Table V.A-1, Iowa is 
projected to contribute 0.90 ppb to a maintenance-only receptor in Cook 
County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001) and 0.70 ppb to a maintenance-only 
receptor in Kenosha, Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019) in the 2023 analytic 
year. As shown in Table V.A-2, Iowa is also linked to three violating-
monitor receptors at locations in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in 
the 2023 analytic year.

                                        Table V.A-1--Iowa Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          2023 Average     2023 Maximum        Iowa
                Receptor ID                            Location              Nonattainment/maintenance    design value     design value    contribution
                                                                                                              (ppb)           (ppb)            (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170310001..................................  Cook, Illinois..............  Maintenance-Only............            68.2             71.9            0.90
550590019..................................  Kenosha, Wisconsin..........  Maintenance-Only............            70.8             71.7            0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD


                              Table V.A-2--Iowa 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Iowa
                Receptor ID                            Location             2021 Design     2022 Design    2021 4th high   2022 4th high   contribution
                                                                            value (ppb)     value (ppb)        (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003..................................  Allegan, Michigan..........              75              75              78              73            1.13
170310032..................................  Cook, Illinois.............              75              75              77              72            0.79
550590025..................................  Kenosha, Wisconsin.........              72              73              72              71            0.71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.

    Table V.A-3 shows that Kansas is projected to contribute 0.82 ppb 
to the violating-monitor receptor in Allegan, MI (Site ID 260050003) in 
the 2023 analytic year.

                             Table V.A-3--Kansas 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Kansas
                Receptor ID                            Location             2021 Design     2022 Design    2021 4th high   2022 4th high   contribution
                                                                            value (ppb)     value (ppb)        (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003..................................  Allegan, Michigan..........              75              75              78              73            0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.

    Iowa and Kansas are not projected to be linked above 1 percent of 
the NAAQS to receptors in the 2026 analytic year. The reasons for the 
changes in linkages in the 2016v3 modeling for Iowa are driven by a 
combination of factors. The EPA explained in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan that the 2016v3 modeling contains several changes to improve its 
performance from the 2016v2 modeling, particularly in recognition of an 
apparent under-prediction problem particularly in the Upper Midwest. 88 
FR at 36697; see also 88 FR at 9344-45. The EPA made changes to better 
incorporate the effects of biogenic emissions sources, lightning, and 
international/boundary conditions on ozone levels, and observed an 
improvement from a 19 percent underprediction to a 6.9 percent under 
prediction in the Upper Midwest. Id. The EPA also updated its 
anthropogenic-source emissions inventory data for all states, including 
Iowa and Kansas. Id. At 36698. The change in linkages for Kansas is 
attributable to the development of the violating-monitor receptor 
methodology for identifying additional maintenance-only receptors, 
coupled with updated calculations of contribution levels derived from 
the updated 2016v3 modeling.
    The same air quality monitoring data and modeling used to analyze 
the analytic years 2023 and 2026 has been used in taking final action 
to define the obligations of 23 states already covered in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan. As explained in section I.A. of this document, the 
Agency finds it both reasonable--and necessary to ensuring consistency 
and equity across all states--to use this same analytical information 
to address the obligations of all states. These data are state-of-the-
science regarding air quality conditions and contribution levels in 
2023 and 2026, reflecting improvements in the EPA's understanding from 
the 2016v2 modeling and incorporating the input of many outside parties 
through their public comments during the rulemaking process. Using 
these data, methodological choices, and analytical findings, the EPA 
has determined that Kansas and Iowa each contribute to at least one 
maintenance receptor greater than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that its approval of each 
State's 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission, with regard 
only to the portion addressing Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision

[[Page 12694]]

at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), was in error.
    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority, 
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior 
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining 
that those actions were in error.\125\ The EPA's state-of-the-science 
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan demonstrates that the 
EPA's prior conclusions that Iowa and Kansas will not interfere with 
maintenance in any other State in the 2023 analytic year was incorrect, 
which means that the EPA's approvals of Iowa's and Kansas' good 
neighbor SIP submissions were in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See, e.g., 86 FR 23054, 23068 (error correcting prior 
approval of Kentucky's transport SIP submission for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS to a disapproval and simultaneously promulgating FIP on the 
basis of the Wisconsin and New York decisions remanding CSAPR Update 
and vacating CSAPR Close-Out and new information establishing 
Kentucky was linked to downwind receptors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency's use of error-correction authority in this instance is 
well-rooted in the statute and case law and is consistent with the 
EPA's longstanding practice and policy of addressing states' good 
neighbor obligations using state-of-the-science air quality analysis in 
a consistent manner across all states.
    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides the EPA with the authority to 
make corrections to actions on CAA implementation plans that are 
subsequently found to be in error. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 
790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) (110(k)(6) is a ``broad provision'' 
enacted to provide the EPA with an avenue to correct errors). The key 
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6) are that the Administrator has the 
authority to ``determine'' that the approval or promulgation of a plan 
was ``in error,'' and when the Administrator so determines, he may then 
revise the action ``as appropriate,'' in the same manner as the prior 
action.\126\ Moreover, CAA section 110(k)(6) ``confers discretion on 
the EPA to decide if and when it will invoke the statute to revise a 
prior action.'' 790 F.3d at 948 (CAA section 110(k)(6) grants the ``EPA 
the discretion to decide when to act pursuant to that provision''). 
While CAA section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to 
correct its own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other 
provision in the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, the EPA 
concludes that the term should be given its plain language, everyday 
meaning, which includes all unintentional, incorrect, or wrong actions 
or mistakes.\127\ Under CAA section 110(k)(6), the EPA must make an 
error determination and provide ``the basis thereof.'' There is no 
indication that this is a substantial burden for the Agency to meet. To 
the contrary, the requirement is met if the EPA clearly articulates the 
error and its basis. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d at 
948; see also 85 FR 73636, 73638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See 85 FR 73636, 73637 (November 19, 2020).
    \127\ See 85 FR at 73637-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA proposes to determine that it made an error 
in approving Kansas' and Iowa's good neighbor SIP submittals. The EPA 
based its prior approvals on the conclusion that these states would not 
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors in 2023, using 
modeling information that has since been updated to incorporate public 
comment and better information, is no longer considered state-of-the-
science, and produces a different result for these states, one which is 
inconsistent with the set of air quality analysis used to inform the 
EPA's evaluation of all other states. See 88 FR 9344-45, 9349-50 
(explaining updates to improve model performance and account for recent 
monitored ozone levels in response to public comments). Had the EPA 
known of this information regarding the 2023 analytic year reflected in 
the 2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor receptor identification 
methodology at the time it issued those approvals, it would not have 
approved Kansas or Iowa's submissions. Under the plain meaning of the 
word ``error,'' those approvals were in error and are in need of 
correction.
    Application of the final air quality analysis and contribution 
information from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in this manner is 
consistent with longstanding EPA practice and policy under the good 
neighbor provision. The EPA explained in the Disapproval action its 
view that use of updated information to inform its action on the states 
included in the Disapproval action was not prejudicial, in part 
because, had the Agency approved any of those states based on modeling 
that had been superseded by more recent and reliable information, it 
would exercise error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) 
as it had done in the past, to convert those approvals to disapprovals 
(as it is now doing here). See 88 FR at 9364. The EPA explained that 
this would be consistent with prior error-correction actions it has 
taken or proposed under the good neighbor provision. See id. (citing 86 
FR 23056, 23067-68 (April 30, 2021) (error correcting Kentucky's 
approval to a disapproval and promulgating FIP addressing Kentucky's 
outstanding 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor obligations); 87 FR 20036, 
20041 (April 6, 2022) (proposing error correction for Delaware's 2015 
ozone NAAQS SIP approval to a disapproval based on updated air quality 
modeling)). Similarly, in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA issued 
error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6) authority for 22 states 
where the EPA had issued approvals of SIPs adopted under the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR), following the D.C. Circuit's decision in North 
Carolina that CAIR's ``emissions budgets were insufficiently related to 
the statutory mandate'' of the good neighbor provision. See 76 FR 
48208, 48220-22 (Aug. 8, 2011). The D.C. Circuit upheld this exercise 
of error-correction authority in EME Homer City, 795 F.3d 118, 132-35 
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    The 22 error corrections in the original CSAPR and for Kentucky in 
the Revised CSAPR Update were prompted by judicial decisions that 
invalidated the reasoning that the EPA had used to support the 
approvals. In those circumstances, a change in the law occurring 
subsequent to the time of the EPA's original action on the SIPs, and 
which the EPA could not have been aware of at the time that it took 
such action, justified the use of error-correction authority. Likewise, 
a change in the EPA's understanding of the relevant facts, even if that 
understanding could not have been known at the time of the EPA's 
original action, may equally justify the exercise of error-correction 
authority.\128\ The EPA does not read the statute to only authorize the 
use of error correction authority under 110(k)(6) when a judicial 
decision or other change in legal view or interpretation has been 
brought to light. This would read into the statute a term that is not 
there, namely, that the EPA can only exercise CAA section 110(k)(6) 
authority when there is a ``legal'' error. As explained previously, the 
statute does not say this. It only uses the term ``error''; that term 
is not defined, and its plain meaning encompasses errors of law or 
fact. In this case, while no intervening judicial decision or change in 
legal

[[Page 12695]]

interpretation has prompted this proposed error correction, this is no 
way diminishes the appropriate exercise of CAA section 110(k)(6) error 
correction authority in this instance. The EPA approved Kansas's and 
Iowa's SIPs based on a mistaken belief that they would not contribute 
above the 1 percent threshold to receptors in 2023. The updated air 
quality and contribution analysis that the EPA used to render final 
determinations in the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
as to all other states' interstate transport obligations for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS now indicates these findings were in error. To align the 
treatment of these states with all others, it is not only reasonable, 
but necessary for consistency and equity, to correct these approvals to 
disapprovals. To clarify, if Kansas and Iowa are not required to now 
meet their interstate transport obligations based on this new 
information, other upwind states as well as the downwind areas to which 
they are linked could bear a greater burden to reduce air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ The court in EME Homer City noted that its holding was 
limited to the circumstance where ``a federal court says that EPA 
lacked statutory authority at the time to approve a SIP.'' 795 F.3d 
at 135 n.12. However, this statement was in relation to its holding 
that the EPA had properly invoked the good cause exception of the 
Administrative Procedure Act to issue those error corrections 
without public notice and comment. See id. The EPA does not read 
this statement as a limitation on the exercise of error-correction 
authority generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this proposed determination, the EPA observes that all 
other states whose good neighbor SIP submissions had previously been 
approved using older data are found in the 2023 and 2026 air quality 
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to continue not to 
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS at any receptors. Thus, there 
remains no need to revisit those approvals, because the updated air 
quality analysis does not indicate that they were in error. Similarly, 
where the EPA's final analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
indicated that, contrary to prior expectations, a State is not linked 
above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors, the EPA has taken action 
to approve that State's submission. This is the case for Wyoming. See 
88 FR 54998 (Aug. 14, 2023). In no case has the EPA issued a final 
disapproval of a good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 
only to find that State not linked in the 2016v3 modeling or pursuant 
to its violating-monitor receptor identification methodology. Had this 
circumstance arisen, consistent with the position adopted here, the EPA 
fully expects it would have acted under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 
correct such a disapproval to an approval.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ For the same reasons, this is not a circumstance in which 
the error correction is based in any sense on a change in agency 
policy. The use of error correction authority in this case is in 
keeping with the EPA's previously stated policy and consistent with 
its practices in evaluating good neighbor obligations. See 88 FR 
9364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA affirms in general that it does not view all 
modeling results as subject to obligatory (or even discretionary) 
revision under error-correction authority, simply because later 
information shows a modeling projection to deviate from subsequent 
modeling or real-world information. Agencies such as the EPA, 
regulating in a scientifically complex arena such as the CAA, must be 
able to make and rely on modeling projections, and this reliance is 
appropriate and lawful even if modeling projections later may be found 
to deviate from real-world information. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at 
135 (``We will not invalidate EPA's predictions solely because there 
might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real 
world.''); see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 318 (holding that the EPA 
must implement the Act even in the face of uncertainty). However, the 
distinction here is in the fact that, following the approval of Kansas' 
and Iowa's SIPs, new modeling information (and other air quality 
analysis) was developed that informed, on a nationally consistent 
basis, the EPA's determinations regarding the good neighbor obligations 
of all other states. The EPA finds that in this circumstance, error 
correction under CAA section 110(k)(6) is warranted and appropriate.
    In proposing these error corrections, the Agency has reviewed the 
original submittals from Iowa and Kansas. The Agency finds no 
information, analysis, or implementation of control measures in these 
submittals that could warrant approval on an alternative basis. The EPA 
finds that neither Kansas nor Iowa submitted an appropriate analysis of 
receptor specific information that could justify the application of a 
higher Step 2 screening threshold of 1 ppb. As explained in section 
III.D.3. of this document, the Agency has concluded that it will not 
conduct such an analysis for any states that failed to develop such an 
analysis themselves, and further, the Agency has explained through both 
its Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan rulemakings that 
it would not be wise policy and would frustrate the goals of 
consistency and equity among states in addressing interstate ozone 
pollution, to attempt to recognize alternative contribution thresholds 
in various states. 88 FR at 9371-75. In addition, neither Kansas or 
Iowa submitted an analysis of emissions control strategies or 
alternative frameworks for analysis at Step 3 that could justify 
approval of their submissions on that basis. Further, neither State 
provided any enforceable emissions control measures in their 
submissions.
    Therefore, the EPA proposes to correct its error in approving 
Iowa's and Kansas' good neighbor SIP submissions. This error correction 
under CAA section 110(k)(6) would revise the approval of the portion of 
Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that 
addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to a partial disapproval as to 
Prong 2 and rescinds any statements that the portion of Iowa's and 
Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission that addresses CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Prong 2, satisfies the requirements of the good 
neighbor provision. The EPA's approval of these SIP submissions as to 
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision is not proposed to be changed. 
The EPA is not proposing to correct the elements of Iowa's and Kansas' 
2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that do not address CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Under CAA section 110(c)(1), finalization of this partial 
disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate 
a FIP for Kansas and Iowa to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant 
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do 
in this action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets 
these requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not 
start a mandatory sanctions clock.
    As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this 
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the 
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions 
reductions that are required for Iowa and Kansas to satisfy their good 
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The analysis on which 
the EPA proposes this conclusion for Iowa and Kansas is the same, 
nationally consistent analytical framework on which the Agency proposes 
FIP action for the other states in this proposed action, as well as for 
the 23 states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan.

B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate 
Finding

    In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA finalized its 
determination that the rule is applicable in all areas of Indian 
country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) within the covered 23-state 
geography of the final rule, as explained

[[Page 12696]]

in section III.C.2. of that action.\130\ Here in this action, the EPA 
proposes to apply this determination to all areas of Indian country 
within the covered geography of this proposed rule. Certain areas of 
Indian country within the geography of the rule are or may be subject 
to State implementation planning authority. For the other areas of 
Indian country within that geography, none of the relevant tribes has 
as yet sought eligibility to administer a Tribal plan to implement the 
good neighbor provision.\131\ Consistent with its final determination 
in section III.C.2. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is 
proposing to include all areas of Indian country within the covered 
geography of this rule, notwithstanding whether those areas are 
currently subject to a State's implementation planning authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 88 FR at 36690-93.
    \131\ Under 40 CFR 49.4(a), tribes are not subject to the 
specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for NAAQS-
related requirements, including deadlines for submittal of plans 
addressing transport impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to areas of Indian country not currently subject to a 
State's implementation planning authority--i.e., Indian reservation 
lands and other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction--the EPA here proposes a 
``necessary or appropriate'' finding that direct Federal implementation 
of the rule's requirements is warranted under CAA section 301(d)(4) and 
40 CFR 49.11(a) (the areas of Indian country subject to this finding 
are referred to later as the CAA section 301(d) FIP areas). Indian 
Tribes may, but are not required to, submit Tribal plans to implement 
CAA requirements, including the good neighbor provision. Section 301(d) 
of the CAA and 40 CFR part 49 authorize the Administrator to treat an 
Indian Tribe in the same manner as a State (i.e., Treatment As State 
(TAS)) for purposes of developing and implementing a Tribal plan that 
addresses good neighbor obligations. See 40 CFR 49.3; see also ``Indian 
Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management,'' hereafter ``Tribal 
Authority Rule'' (63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998). The EPA is authorized 
to directly implement the good neighbor provision in the 301(d) FIP 
areas when it finds, consistent with the authority of CAA section 301--
which the EPA has exercised in 40 CFR 49.11--that it is necessary or 
appropriate to do so.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 562 F.3d 1116, 
1125 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that 40 CFR 49.11(a) ``provides the 
EPA discretion to determine what rulemaking is necessary or 
appropriate to protect air quality and requires the EPA to 
promulgate such rulemaking''); Safe Air For Everyone v. U.S. Env't 
Prot. Agency, No. 05-73383, 2006 WL 3697684, at *1 (9th Cir., Dec. 
15, 2006) (``The statutes and regulations that enable EPA to 
regulate air quality on Indian reservations provide EPA with broad 
discretion in setting the content of such regulations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes in this action to find that it is both necessary 
and appropriate to regulate all new and existing EGU and non-EGU 
sources meeting the applicability criteria set forth in this proposed 
rule in the 301(d) FIP areas that are located within the geographic 
scope of coverage of the rule. For purposes of this proposed finding, 
the geographic scope of coverage of the rule means the areas of the 
United States encompassed within the borders of the states of Arizona, 
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.\133\ For EGU applicability 
criteria, see section VII.A. of this document; for non-EGU 
applicability criteria, see section VII.B. of this document. To the 
EPA's knowledge, there are two existing EGU sources located within the 
301(d) FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort 
Mojave Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo 
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the 
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ With respect to any non-EGU sources located in the 301(d) 
FIP areas, the geographic scope of coverage of this proposed rule 
does not include those states for which the EPA proposes to find, 
based on air quality modeling, that no further linkage exists by the 
2026 analytic year at Steps 1 and 2. The only State in this rule 
projected to be linked in 2026 is Arizona.
    \134\ The EPA is currently not aware of any existing non-EGU 
sources that are located within the 301(d) FIP areas within 
Arizona's borders that meet the non-EGU applicability criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed finding is consistent with the EPA's prior good 
neighbor rules, including the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In prior 
rulemakings under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has included all 
areas of Indian country within the geographic scope of those FIPs, such 
that any new or existing sources meeting the rules' applicability 
criteria would be subject to the rule. In the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, 
and the Revised CSAPR Update, the scope of the emissions trading 
programs established for EGUs extended to cover all areas of Indian 
country located within the geographic boundaries of the covered states. 
In these rules, at the time of their promulgation, no existing units 
were located in the covered areas of Indian country; under the general 
applicability criteria of the trading programs, however, any new 
sources located in such areas would become subject to the programs. 
Thus, the EPA established a separate allowance allocation that would be 
available for any new units locating in any of the relevant areas of 
Indian country. See, e.g., 76 FR at 48293 (describing the CSAPR 
methodology of allowance allocation under the ``Indian country new unit 
set-aside'' provisions); see also id. at 48217 (explaining the EPA's 
source of authority for directly regulating in relevant areas of Indian 
country as necessary or appropriate). Further, in any action in which 
the EPA subsequently approved a State's SIP submission to partially or 
wholly replace the provisions of a CSAPR FIP, the EPA has clearly 
delineated that it will continue to administer the Indian country new 
unit set aside for sources in any areas of Indian country 
geographically located within a State's borders and not subject to that 
State's CAA planning authority, and the State may not exercise 
jurisdiction over any such sources. See, e.g., 82 FR 46674, 46677 
(October 6, 2017) (approving Alabama's SIP submission establishing a 
State CSAPR trading program for ozone season NO<INF>X</INF>, but 
providing, ``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.'').
    For this proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes to take the same 
approach with respect to regulating sources in the 301(d) FIP areas as 
was finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA finds this 
approach is necessary and appropriate for several reasons. First, as an 
extension of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the purpose of this rule 
is to address the interstate transport of ozone on a national scale. 
Consistent with its findings regarding the broad upwind region covered 
by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes to extend into the 
geography of these five additional states a uniform level of emissions-
control stringency. (See section VI. of this document for a discussion 
of the EPA's determination of control stringency for this proposal.) 
Within this approach, consistency in rule requirements across all 
jurisdictions is vital in ensuring the remedy for ozone transport is, 
in the words of the Supreme Court, ``efficient and equitable,'' 572 
U.S. 489, 519. In particular, as the Supreme Court found in EME Homer 
City Generation, allocating responsibility through uniform levels of 
control across the entire upwind geography is ``equitable'' because, by 
imposing uniform cost thresholds on regulated States, the EPA's rule 
subjects to stricter regulation

[[Page 12697]]

those States that have done relatively less in the past to control 
their pollution. Upwind States that have not yet implemented pollution 
controls of the same stringency as their neighbors will be stopped from 
free riding on their neighbors' efforts to reduce pollution. They will 
have to bring down their emissions by installing devices of the kind in 
which neighboring States have already invested. Id.
    In the context of addressing regional-scale ozone transport in this 
proposal, a uniform level of stringency that extends to and includes 
the 301(d) FIP areas geographically located within the boundaries of 
the linked upwind states carries significant force. Failure to include 
all such areas within the scope of the rule creates a significant risk 
that these areas may be targeted for the siting of facilities emitting 
ozone-precursor pollutants to avoid the regulatory costs that would be 
imposed under this proposed rule in the surrounding areas of State 
jurisdiction. Electricity generation or the production of other goods 
and commodities may become more cost-competitive at any EGUs or non-
EGUs not subject to the rule but located in a geography where all 
surrounding facilities in the same industrial category are subject to 
the rule. For instance, the affected EGU sources located on the Fort 
Mojave Reservation of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Navajo 
Reservation of the Navajo Nation are both in areas covered by the 
interconnected western electricity grid. The EGU source on the Fort 
Mojave Reservation is owned by a large merchant power supplier and the 
EGU source on the Navajo Reservation is jointly owned by entities that 
supply electricity to customers in several states. It is both necessary 
and appropriate, in the EPA's view, to avoid creating, via this 
proposed rule, a structure of incentives that may cause generation or 
production--and the associated NO<INF>X</INF> emissions--to shift into 
the 301(d) FIP areas to escape regulation needed to eliminate 
interstate transport under the good neighbor provision.
    The EPA finds it is appropriate to propose direct Federal 
implementation of the proposed rule's requirements in the 301(d) FIP 
areas at this time rather than at a later date. Tribes generally have 
the opportunity to seek TAS and to undertake Tribal implementation 
plans under the CAA. To date, no tribe relevant to an existing EGU in 
the 301(d) FIP areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (or for any other NAAQS) 
has expressed an intent to do so for purposes of regulating interstate 
transport of air pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). Nor has the 
EPA heard such intentions from any other tribe within the geography of 
this rule, and it would not be reasonable to expect tribes to undertake 
that planning effort, particularly when no existing sources are 
currently located on their lands. Further, the EPA is mindful that 
under court precedent, the EPA and states generally bear an obligation 
to fully implement any required emissions reductions to eliminate 
significant contribution under the good neighbor provision as 
expeditiously as practicable and in alignment with downwind areas' 
attainment schedule under the Act. As discussed in section VII.A. of 
this document, the EPA anticipates implementing certain required 
emissions reductions by the 2025 ozone season, and, for Arizona, 
additional required emissions reductions by the 2027 ozone season. 
Absent this proposed Federal implementation plan in the 301(d) FIP 
areas, NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from any existing or new EGU or non-EGU 
sources located in, or locating in, the 301(d) FIP areas within the 
covered geography of the rule would remain unregulated and could 
potentially increase. This would be inconsistent with the EPA's overall 
goal of aligning good neighbor obligations with the downwind areas' 
attainment schedule and to achieve emissions reductions as 
expeditiously as practicable.
    Further, the EPA recognizes that Indian country, including the 
301(d) FIP areas, is often home to communities with environmental 
justice concerns, and these communities may bear a disproportionate 
level of pollution burden as compared with other areas of the United 
States. The EPA's draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2026 \135\ 
includes an objective to promote environmental justice at the Federal, 
Tribal, state, and local levels and states: ``Integration of 
environmental justice principles into all EPA activities with Tribal 
governments and in Indian country is designed to be flexible enough to 
accommodate EPA's Tribal program activities and goals, while at the 
same time meeting the Agency's environmental justice goals.'' By 
including all areas of Indian country within the covered geography of 
the rule, the EPA is advancing environmental justice, lowering 
pollution burdens in such areas, and preventing the potential for 
``pollution havens'' to form in such areas as a result of facilities 
seeking to locate there to avoid the requirements that would otherwise 
apply outside of such areas under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/fy-2022-2026-epa-draft-strategic-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, to ensure timely alignment of all needed emissions 
reductions with the larger timetable of this proposed rule, to ensure 
equitable distribution of the upwind pollution reduction obligation 
across all upwind jurisdictions, to avoid perverse economic incentives 
to locate sources of ozone-precursor pollution in the 301(d) FIP areas, 
and to deliver greater environmental justice, including protection for 
Tribal communities in line with Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our 
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,\136\ the EPA 
proposes to find it both necessary and appropriate that all existing 
and new EGU and non-EGU sources that are located in the 301(d) FIP 
areas within the geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which 
would be subject to this rule if located within areas subject to State 
CAA planning authority, should be included in this rule. The EPA 
proposes this finding under section 301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 
49.11. Further, to avoid ``unreasonable delay'' in promulgating this 
FIP, as required under Sec.  49.11, the EPA concludes it is appropriate 
to make this proposed finding now, to align emissions reduction 
obligations for any covered new or existing sources in the section 
301(d) FIP areas with the larger schedule of reductions under this 
proposed rule. Because all other covered EGU and non-EGU sources within 
the geography of this proposed rule would be subject to emissions 
reductions of uniform stringency beginning in the 2025 ozone season, 
and as necessary to fully and expeditiously address good neighbor 
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, there is little benefit to be had 
by not proposing to include the 301(d) FIP areas in this rule now and a 
potentially significant downside to not doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Executive Order 14096 (April 21, 2023): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA will continue to consult with the governments of the Fort 
Mojave Indian Tribe of the Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation 
of the Navajo Reservation, and any other tribe wishing to continue 
consultation, during the comment period for this proposal. The EPA 
invites comment on this proposed finding.

[[Page 12698]]

VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX Emissions Reduction Potential To 
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS

A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test

    This section describes the EPA's methodology at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework for identifying upwind emissions 
that constitute ``significant'' contribution or interference with 
maintenance for the five states identified in the previous sections. 
The EPA proposes to apply the same analysis to these states that it 
applied for 23 states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\137\ To 
summarize this analysis: The EPA applies a multi-factor test at Step 3. 
The multi-factor test considers cost, available emissions reductions, 
downwind air quality impacts, and other factors (e.g., controls that 
have been widely adopted by like sources in other upwind states and/or 
in downwind areas with ozone attainment problems) to determine the 
appropriate level of control stringency that would eliminate 
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors. The selection of a uniform level of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
control stringency across all of the linked states, reflected by 
representative cost per ton of emissions reduction figures for EGUs and 
the identified units in non-EGU industries, were principal findings 
from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These findings serve to 
apportion the reduction responsibility among collectively contributing 
upwind states. The EPA proposes to apply these same findings to five 
additional states. As explained in section I.A. of this document, these 
states are being addressed in this separate rulemaking due to a 
happenstance resulting from rulemaking procedures and the timing of 
development of information that informed action on other states. As 
such, these states are not substantively situated differently in a 
meaningful or material way from any of the other states for which the 
EPA has already rendered a final determination of the appropriate level 
of emissions-control stringency to eliminate significant contribution 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Had the EPA originally included these five 
states in its multifactor test considering emissions reduction 
potential across all linked states for this 2015 ozone NAAQS, the 
Agency would have made the same control stringency determination due to 
the comparable air quality circumstances and cost-effective emissions 
reduction opportunities across the linked upwind-state geography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See 88 FR at 36718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA therefore proposes to extend these findings on a uniform 
basis to these five additional states. This approach to quantifying 
upwind State emission-reduction obligations using a uniform level of 
control stringency was reviewed by the Supreme Court in EME Homer City 
Generation, which held that using such an approach to apportion 
emissions reduction responsibilities among upwind states that are 
collectively responsible for downwind air quality impacts ``is an 
efficient and equitable solution to the allocation problem the good 
neighbor provision requires the Agency to address.'' 572 U.S. at 519.
    In the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA's analysis focused 
on NO<INF>X</INF> as the primary ozone-precursor pollutant of 
concern.\138\ The EPA then conducted four analytical steps as part of 
the Step 3 multifactor test to arrive at an appropriate level of 
stringency that eliminated significant contribution and/or interference 
with maintenance. These were: (1) identify levels of uniform 
NO<INF>X</INF> control stringency; (2) evaluate potential 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions associated with each identified 
level of uniform control stringency; (3) assess air quality 
improvements at downwind receptors for each level of uniform control 
stringency; and (4) select a level of control stringency considering 
the identified cost, available NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, and 
downwind air quality impacts, while also ensuring that emissions 
reductions do not unnecessarily over-control upwind-state emissions 
relative to the contribution threshold applied at Step 2 or the 
resolution of downwind receptors at Step 1. The remainder of this 
section summarizes the application of this analytical framework to the 
EGU and non-EGU sources in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and 
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (88 FR 
36719) the EPA examined the results of the contribution modeling 
performed for that rule to identify the portion of the ozone 
contribution attributable to anthropogenic NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
versus VOC emissions from each linked upwind State to each downwind 
receptor. From that analysis, the Agency concluded that the vast 
majority of the downwind air quality areas addressed by the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan are primarily NO<INF>X</INF>-limited, rather than 
VOC-limited. Therefore, the EPA found that regulation of 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions was necessary while regulation of VOCs as 
an ozone precursor in upwind states was not necessary to eliminate 
significant contribution or interference with maintenance in 
downwind areas in that rule. Considering that many of the downwind 
locations are the same in this rulemaking, and that the EPA is 
relying on the same air quality modeling, the EPA affirms that the 
conclusions about regulation of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions relative to 
VOCs from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan apply in this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both EGUs and non-EGUs, section VI.B. of this document 
describes the available NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls that the EPA 
evaluated for this proposed rule and their representative cost levels 
(in 2016$). Section VI.C. of this document discusses the EPA's 
application of that information to assess emissions reduction potential 
of the identified control stringencies. Finally, section VI.D. of this 
document describes the EPA's assessment of associated air quality 
impacts and proposed determination of significant contribution. Section 
VI.D. of this document also describes the analysis the Agency conducted 
to evaluate if its selected control strategy would result in over-
control for any upwind state, that is, whether an upwind State could 
have reduced its air quality contributions below the 1 percent of NAAQS 
air quality contribution threshold at a lower level of emissions-
control stringency than identified in the GNP.
    As in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA applies its multi-
factor test at Step 3 to EGUs and non-EGUs on consistent but parallel 
tracks. Following the conclusions of the EGU and non-EGU multi-factor 
tests, the identified reductions for EGUs and non-EGUs are combined and 
collectively analyzed to assess their effects on downwind air quality 
and whether the proposed rule achieves a full remedy to eliminate 
``significant contribution'' while avoiding over-control.
    As described in section III.D.4. of this document and described in 
this section, the EPA proposes that it is reasonable and equitable to 
apply the same nationally-determined level of uniform emissions-control 
stringency already determined in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
for 23 states to these five additional states. The EPA is aware of no 
state-specific circumstances as to any of these five states that would 
warrant different treatment or analysis than has already been applied 
on a nationwide basis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.

B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels

1. EGUs
    The Federal Good Neighbor Plan analyzed five NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions control strategies at EGUs: (1) fully operating existing SCR, 
including both optimizing NO<INF>X</INF> removal by existing 
operational SCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs; (2) 
installing state-of-the-art NO<INF>X</INF> combustion controls; (3) 
fully operating existing SNCRs,

[[Page 12699]]

including both optimizing NO<INF>X</INF> removal by existing 
operational SNCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SNCRs; 
(4) installing new SNCRs; and (5) installing new SCRs.
    In prior good neighbor rules, the EPA typically evaluated the 
potential for emissions reductions from generation shifting at the 
representative cost for each mitigation technology. This is because 
shifting generation to lower NO<INF>X</INF> emitting or zero-emitting 
EGUs may occur in response to economic factors. As the cost of emitting 
NO<INF>X</INF> increases, it becomes increasingly cost-effective for 
units with lower NO<INF>X</INF> rates to increase generation, while 
units with higher NO<INF>X</INF> rates reduce generation. Because the 
cost of generation is unit-specific, this generation shifting occurs 
incrementally on a continuum. However, for reasons described in the 
preamble for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA determined that it 
was not appropriate to incorporate emissions reductions from generation 
shifting.\139\ For the same reasons, the EPA does not quantify 
emissions reductions from generation shifting for the states covered by 
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ 88 FR 36731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is equitable and reasonable to continue to use the same cost, 
performance, and timelines for EGU NO<INF>X</INF> mitigation strategies 
that were determined for EGUs for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan \140\ 
for the five additional states, as described in section III.D.4. of 
this document. The analysis of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls was 
completed recently and there have been no meaningful changes in the 
factors considered since that analysis was completed.\141\ Table 
VI.B.1-1 summarizes the cost, performance, and availability dates based 
on the implementation timelines for the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> mitigation 
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 88 FR 36720-36732.
    \141\ See the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> Mitigation Strategies Final 
Rule TSD Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and supported 
by technical information provided in the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> Mitigation 
Strategies Final Rule TSD and its Addendum included in the docket for 
this rulemaking, the EPA finds that the timeframe for optimizing 
existing SCR and SNCR controls is about 2 months or less, and the 
timeframe for upgrading combustion controls is about 6 months. 
Additionally, for the same reasons described in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that the first season for installing 
new SNCRs should be aligned with the first season of feasible 
installation for SCRs, i.e., the 2027 ozone season.\142\ Finally, for 
the same reasons that the EPA described in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR installation at EGUs can occur over a 
36-48 month period, taking into account the fleetwide nature of the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (including this supplemental rulemaking to 
expand the Plan's coverage to five additional states, which considers 
emissions reductions commensurate with retrofitting SCR on only an 
additional seven units in Arizona).\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 88 FR 36726.
    \143\ 88 FR 36727.

                      Table VI.B.1-1--Summary of EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies, Representative Costs, Timelines, and Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Representative cost                            First ozone season available                        NOX emissions rate
       Mitigation strategy               (2016$)         Implementation timeline    for  supplemental states     Unit applicability       (lb/MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully Operating Existing SCR       $1,600/ton.........  <2 months...............  2025........................  Covered fossil-      Coal steam: 0.08; O/
 (optimizing operating and idled                                                                                 fired units with     G Steam: 0.03;
 SCR).                                                                                                           SCR.                 Combustion
                                                                                                                                      Turbine: 0.03;
                                                                                                                                      Combined Cycle:
                                                                                                                                      0.012.
Installing State-Of-The-Art        $1,600/ton.........  6 to 8 months...........  2025........................  Covered coal steam   0.199.
 Combustion Controls.                                                                                            units lacking
                                                                                                                 state-of-the-art
                                                                                                                 combustion
                                                                                                                 controls.
Fully Operating Existing SNCR      $1,800/ton.........  <2 months...............  2025........................  Covered fossil-      Up to a 25%
 (optimizing operating and idled                                                                                 fired units with     reduction in
 SNCR).                                                                                                          SNCR.                emissions rate if
                                                                                                                                      SNCR idled.
Installing New SNCR..............  $6,700/ton.........  16 months...............  2027........................  Covered CFB units    Up to a 50%
                                                                                                                 of any size and      reduction in
                                                                                                                 other coal steam     emissions rate for
                                                                                                                 units under 100 MW   CFB units; up to a
                                                                                                                 lacking post-        25% reduction in
                                                                                                                 combustion NOX       emissions rate for
                                                                                                                 controls \144\.      other units.
Installing New SCR...............  $11,000/ton (coal    36 to 48 months.........  2027 (with phase in over      Covered coal steam   0.05 for coal steam
                                    steam); $7,700 (O/                             2027 and 2028).               units (except CFB)   units; 0.03 for O/
                                    G steam).                                                                    great than 100 MW;   G steam units.
                                                                                                                 O/G Steam units at
                                                                                                                 least 100 MW and
                                                                                                                 with at least 150
                                                                                                                 tons NOX emissions
                                                                                                                 on average for the
                                                                                                                 2019 to 2021 ozone
                                                                                                                 seasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Non-EGUs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ No units in Arizona, the only State in this proposal 
linked in 2026, meet this criterion, but the mitigation strategy is 
included in the table for completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA developed an analytical 
framework to facilitate decisions about which industries and emissions 
unit types in the non-electric generating unit ``sector'' may have a 
share of upwind states' significant contribution to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. 
A February 28, 2022 memorandum documents the analytical framework that 
the EPA used to initially identify, through a regional-scale, 
multistate screening assessment (Screening Assessment), industries and 
emissions unit types for which there appeared to be cost-effective 
reductions having the greatest potential for air quality benefit in 
downwind states.\145\ From this Screening Assessment, the EPA further 
developed its proposed set of emissions control strategies for non-EGUs 
that would fully eliminate significant contribution from the

[[Page 12700]]

upwind states.\146\ Following consideration of public comment, in the 
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan the EPA finalized emissions control 
requirements for certain non-EGU sources. The EPA prepared a memorandum 
summarizing the emissions unit types, applicability criteria, emissions 
limits, estimated number of emissions units captured by the 
applicability criteria, and estimated emissions reductions and 
costs.\147\ The EPA updated its technical analysis of non-EGU industry 
sectors and responded to public comments.\148\ The final Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan established a uniform set of emissions control 
requirements for non-EGU sources in nine industries for each of the 20 
states for which the EPA found continuing contribution at or above 1 
percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone season. See generally 88 FR 
at 36817-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ The memorandum titled Screening Assessment of Potential 
Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and Costs from Non-EGU 
Emissions Units for 2026 is available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0150.
    \146\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the 
Proposed Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0145.
    \147\ The memorandum titled Summary of Final Rule Applicability 
Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions Units, Assumed 
Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions Limits, and 
Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs is 
available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
    \148\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the 
Final Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with its EGU analysis at Step 3, the EPA finds that it is 
equitable and reasonable to extend these same findings for the relevant 
non-EGU sources in the State of Arizona, which is the only state 
covered in this action for which the EPA continues to find a continuing 
contribution at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone 
season. Several points that the EPA observed in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan bear emphasis in explaining why it is reasonable for 
Arizona's sources to be subject to the same Step 3 analysis and non-EGU 
control requirements as the other covered states. There is an equitable 
concern that supports an approach by which direct competitors within 
identified industries within the geography of linked upwind states are 
held to the same level of emissions performance, as this avoids the 
potential for emissions shifting or competitive disadvantages brought 
on by assigning transport obligations to individual sources that are 
not borne by their competitors in other linked upwind states. Thus, 
this has informed how the EPA has consistently approached assessing 
emissions control opportunities in prior ozone transport rulemakings, 
and in particular, the analysis of emissions control opportunities on 
an industry-wide basis. For example, in CSAPR, we focused on a single 
industry, the power sector (or EGUs), because we found that in general, 
across this industry, there were highly cost-effective emissions 
control opportunities compared to other industries (based on our 
assessment at that time). See 76 FR at 48249. Similarly, in the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, we also focused on assessing emissions-control 
opportunities by industry (using NAICS-code industry classifications as 
we do in this action), while recognizing that boilers are a unit type 
that could have cost-effective emissions reductions across multiple 
industries (as we again recognize in this action). See 63 FR at 57399. 
The EPA explained in the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call that this approach 
``assure[d] equity among the various source categories and the 
industries they represent,'' id.
    It was precisely this analytical framework that the Supreme Court 
upheld in EME Homer City, noting the ``thorny causation problem'' of 
interstate pollution transport, 572 U.S. at 514, the need to account 
for ``the vagaries of the wind,'' id. at 497, and the complexity of 
allocating responsibility among potentially large groups of states who 
may each contribute to one another's air quality problems as well as to 
multiple other states in varying degrees, id. 514-16.
    Applying these principles here, the EPA views it as reasonable to 
conclude that the Screening Assessment methodology continues to serve 
as a reasonable and reliable method for distinguishing potentially 
impactful industries from non-impactful industries in Arizona, just as 
in the other states for purposes of defining good neighbor obligations 
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the context of a FIP. The Screening 
Assessment identified nine out of approximately 40 industries for 
further evaluation. That these were found to be the nine potentially 
most impactful industries is not surprising, as each of these 
industries typically involve large-scale fossil-fuel combustion as part 
of their manufacturing or other processes, have historically had high 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions as a result, and are projected to continue to 
have relatively high NO<INF>X</INF> emissions into the future. For 
existing as well as any new sources that come to be located in Arizona, 
it therefore makes sense to require these sources to meet the same 
emissions control requirements that the same types of sources are 
subject to in the covered states that have been found to have non-EGU 
emissions that significantly contribute to other states' problems 
attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA therefore proposes to apply the same Step 3 non-EGU 
analytical framework for Arizona as applied in the covered states whose 
sources are subject to these requirements. Table VI.B.2-1 summarizes 
the industries, emissions unit types, and applicability requirements, 
and Table VI.B.2-2 summarizes the industries, emissions unit types, 
form of proposed emissions limits, and proposed emissions limits.

Table VI.B.2-1--Summary of Industries, Non-EGU Emissions Unit Types, and
                       Applicability Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Emissions unit       Applicability
           Industry                    type             requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of      Reciprocating      Nameplate rating of
 Natural Gas.                    Internal           >=1000 braking
                                 Combustion         horsepower (bhp).
                                 Engines.
Cement and Concrete Product     Kilns............  Directly emits or has
 Manufacturing.                                     the potential to
                                                    emit 100 tons per
                                                    year (tpy) or more
                                                    of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and        Reheat Furnaces..  Directly emits or has
 Ferroalloy Manufacturing.                          the potential to
                                                    emit 100 tpy or more
                                                    of NOX.
Glass and Glass Product         Furnaces.........  Directly emits or has
 Manufacturing.                                     the potential to
                                                    emit 100 tpy or more
                                                    of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and        Boilers..........  Design capacity of
 Ferroalloy Manufacturing;                          >=100 mmBtu/hr.
 Metal Ore Mining; Basic
 Chemical Manufacturing;
 Petroleum and Coal Products
 Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper,
 and Paperboard Mills.

[[Page 12701]]

 
Solid Waste Combustors and      Combustors or      Design capacity >=250
 Incinerators.                   Incinerators.      tons of waste/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table VI.B.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Form of Proposed Emissions Limits, and
                                            Proposed Emissions Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Form of proposed
              Industry                 Emissions unit type      emissions limits      Proposed emissions limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural   Reciprocating Internal  Grams per horsepower    Four Stroke Rich Burn: 1.0
 Gas.                                 Combustion Engines.     per hours (g/hp-hr).    g/hp-hr; Four Stroke Lean
                                                                                      Burn: 1.5 g/hp-hr; Two
                                                                                      Stroke Lean Burn: 3.0 g/hp-
                                                                                      hr.
Cement and Concrete Product          Kilns.................  Pounds per ton (lbs/    Long Wet: 4.0 lb/ton; Long
 Manufacturing.                                               ton) of clinker.        Dry: 3.0 lb/ton;
                                                                                      Preheater: 3.8 lb/ton;
                                                                                      Precalciner: 2.3 lb/ton;
                                                                                      Preheater/Precalciner: 2.8
                                                                                      lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy  Reheat Furnaces.......  lbs/mmBtu \a\.........  Test and set limit based on
 Manufacturing.                                                                       installation of Low-NOX
                                                                                      Burners.
Glass and Glass Product              Furnaces..............  lbs/ton glass produced  Container Glass Furnace:
 Manufacturing.                                                                       4.0 lb/ton; Pressed/Blown
                                                                                      Glass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton;
                                                                                      Fiberglass Furnace: 4.0 lb/
                                                                                      ton; Flat Glass Furnace: 7
                                                                                      lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy  Boilers...............  lbs/mmBtu \a\.........  Coal: 0.20 lb/mmBtu;
 Manufacturing; Metal Ore Mining;                                                     Residual Oil: 0.20 lb/
 Basic Chemical Manufacturing;                                                        mmBtu; Distillate Oil:
 Petroleum and Coal Products                                                          0.12 lb/mmBtu; Natural
 Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and                                                      Gas: 0.08 lb/mmBtu.
 Paperboard Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and           Combustors or           ppmvd on a 24-hour      110 ppmvd on a 24-hour
 Incinerators.                        Incinerators.           averaging period and    averaging period; 105
                                                              ppmvd on a 30-day       ppmvd on a 30-day
                                                              averaging period.       averaging period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Heat input limit.

C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per Ton) and 
Corresponding Emissions Reductions

1. EGUs
    For EGUs, as discussed in section VI.A. of this document, the 
multi-factor test considers increasing levels of uniform control 
stringency in combination with considering total NO<INF>X</INF> 
reduction potential and corresponding air quality improvements. The EPA 
evaluated EGU NO<INF>X</INF> emissions controls that are widely 
available (described previously in section VI.B.1. of this document), 
that were assessed in previous rules to address ozone transport, and 
that have been incorporated into State planning requirements to address 
ozone nonattainment.
    This analysis generated a selected representative cost threshold of 
$11,000 per ton, associated with the retrofit of SCR on coal-fired EGUs 
currently lacking that technology. 88 FR at 36745. All cost values 
discussed in this section for EGUs are in 2016 dollars.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and final 
Revised CSAPR Update RIA, as well as the proposal and final Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan RIA, to be consistent with those recent actions 
we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar year for presenting 
costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following tables summarize the emissions reduction potentials 
(in ozone season tons) from these emissions controls across the 
affected jurisdictions. Table VI.C.1-1 focuses on near-term emissions 
controls while Table VI.C.1-2 includes emissions controls with extended 
implementation timeframes.

             Table VI.C.1-1--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Near Term *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels
                                                                              of technology inclusion
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                   Baseline 2025                        SCR          SCR/SNCR
                      State                           OS NOX                      optimization +  optimization +
                                                                        SCR         combustion      combustion
                                                                   optimization       control         control
                                                                                     upgrades        upgrades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................................           8,479              84             153             284
Iowa............................................           9,867               0              54             115
Kansas..........................................           5,510             747             747             747
New Mexico......................................           2,241              31              31              31
Tennessee.......................................           4,064              81              81              81
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12702]]

 
    Total.......................................          30,162             943           1,066           1,257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
  Neighbor Plan.


       Table VI.C.1-2--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Extended Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of technology
                                                                             inclusion
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     SCR/SNCR
              State                Baseline 2026                        SCR          SCR/SNCR     optimization +
                                      OS NOX            SCR       optimization +  optimization +    combustion
                                                   optimization     combustion      combustion        control
                                                                      control         control     upgrades + SCR/
                                                                     upgrades        upgrades     SNCR retrofits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................           6,098              84             153             284           2,085
Iowa............................           9,773               0               0              60           5,747
Kansas..........................           5,510             747             747             747           2,398
New Mexico......................           2,038              31              31              31             361
Tennessee.......................           4,064              81              81              81              81
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          27,484             943           1,012           1,203          10,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
  Neighbor Plan.

2. Non-EGUs
    As detailed in the memorandum titled, Summary of Final Rule 
Applicability Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions 
Units, Assumed Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions 
Limits, and Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs 
\150\ prepared for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA uses the 
2019 emissions inventory, the list of emissions units estimated to be 
captured by the applicability criteria, the assumed control 
technologies that would meet the emissions limits, and information on 
control efficiencies and default cost/ton values from the control 
measures database \151\ to estimate NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions 
and costs for this proposal. The estimates using the 2019 inventory and 
information from the control measures database identify proxies for 
emissions units, as well as emissions reductions, and costs associated 
with the assumed control technologies that would meet the emissions 
limits. Emissions units subject to the proposed rule emissions limits 
may differ from those estimated in this assessment, and the estimated 
emissions reductions from and costs to meet the proposed rule emissions 
limits may also differ from those estimated in this assessment. The 
costs do not include monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or testing 
costs. As with the analysis for non-EGUs described in section VI.B.2. 
of this document, this proposal simply applies the same analysis that 
was conducted for these industries in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 
considering data specific to the one State included in this action, 
Arizona, that is proposed to be subject to the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan's non-EGU emissions control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
    \151\ More information on the control measures database can be 
found here: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI.C.2-1 of this document summarizes the industries, 
estimated emissions unit types, and assumed control technologies that 
meet the proposed emissions limits. Table VI.C.2-2 of this document 
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed 
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, and the 
estimated number of control installations in Arizona. Table VI.C.2-3 
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed 
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, annual 
costs (2016$), and ozone season emissions reductions. The average cost 
per ton is $5,457 and is estimated using annual emissions. As the EPA 
discussed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the cost estimates for all 
non-EGU industries were generally commensurate with the representative 
uniform cost threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs. See 88 FR 
at 36746-47.

[[Page 12703]]



  Table VI.C.2-1--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types,
    Assumed Control Technologies That Meet Proposed Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Assumed control
                                  Emissions unit     technologies that
           Industry                    type            meet proposed
                                                      emissions limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of      Reciprocating      Layered Combustion (2-
 Natural Gas.                    Internal           cycle Lean Burn)
                                 Combustion         \a\; SCR (4-cycle
                                 Engines.           Lean Burn); NSCR (4-
                                                    cycle Rich Burn).
Cement and Concrete Product     Kilns............  SNCR.
 Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and        Reheat Furnaces..  LNB.
 Ferroalloy Manufacturing.
Glass and Glass Product         Furnaces.........  LNB.
 Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and        Boilers..........  LNB + FGR (Natural
 Ferroalloy Manufacturing.                          Gas, No Coal or
                                                    Oil).
Metal Ore Mining..............  .................  SCR (Any Coal, Any
                                                    Oil).
Basic Chemical Manufacturing..
Petroleum and Coal Products
 Manufacturing.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
 Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and      Combustors or      ANSCR \b\; LN\tm\ and
 Incinerators.                   Incinerators.      SNCR \b,c\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Some emissions units, or engines, in the 2019 inventory had Source
  Classification Codes indicating that the units were reciprocating
  without specifying the type of engine. The EPA assumed Non-Selective
  Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) or layered combustion as the control for
  these emissions units.
\b\ Municipal Waste Combustor Workgroup Report, prepared by the Ozone
  Transport Commission Stationary and Area Sources Committee, Revised
  April 2022.
\c\ Covanta has developed a proprietary low NOX combustion system
  (LN\TM\) that involves staging of combustion air. The system is a
  trademarked system and Covanta has received a patent for the
  technology.


   Table VI.C.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies That Meet
                     Proposed Emissions Limits, Estimated Number of Control Installations *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Estimated
                                                                            Assumed control          number of
           Industry/industries                Emissions unit type       technologies that meet    existing units
                                                                       proposed emissions limits    per assumed
                                                                                                      control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas..  Reciprocating Internal      NSCR or Layered Combustion  ..............
                                           Combustion Engines.         (Reciprocating).
                                                                      Layered Combustion (2-                   6
                                                                       cycle Lean Burn).
                                                                      SCR (4-cycle Lean Burn)...  ..............
                                                                      NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn)..  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
  reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
  applicability criteria of the proposed rule.


  Table VI.C.2-3--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated
                   Total Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions in 2026 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assumed control
                                                             technologies that     Annual costs    Ozone season
        Industry/industries          Emissions unit type       meet proposed          (2016$)        emissions
                                                              emissions limits                      reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural  Reciprocating          Layered Combustion (2-      4,309,893             329
 Gas.                                Internal Combustion    cycle Lean Burn).
                                     Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
  reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
  applicability criteria of the proposed rule.

D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX Reductions, and Air Quality

    As described in section V.A. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
preamble, to determine the emissions that are significantly 
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance, the EPA 
applied the multi-factor test to EGUs and non-EGUs on separate but 
parallel tracks, considering for each the relationship of cost, 
available emissions reductions, and downwind air quality impacts. 
Specifically, for each sector, the EPA finalized a determination 
regarding the fact that a uniform NO<INF>X</INF> control stringency was 
appropriate and identified an appropriate level of uniform 
NO<INF>X</INF> control stringency that would eliminate significant 
contribution from each upwind state. Based on the air quality results 
presented in section V.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble, 
the EPA found that the emissions control strategies that were 
identified and evaluated in sections V.B. and V.C. of the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan preamble were cost-effective and delivered meaningful air 
quality benefits through projected reductions in ozone levels across 
the linked downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 
relevant analytic years 2023 and 2026. Further, the EPA found the 
emissions control strategies in upwind states that would deliver these 
benefits to be widely available and in use at many other similar EGU 
and non-EGU facilities throughout the country, particularly in those 
areas that have historically or now continue to struggle to attain and

[[Page 12704]]

maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As described in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan, for this regional pollutant (i.e., ozone), for this 
NAAQS (i.e., 2015 ozone), applying these emissions control strategies 
on a uniform basis across all linked upwind states constituted an 
efficient and equitable solution to the problem of allocating upwind-
state responsibility for the elimination of significant contribution. 
See 88 FR at 36741.
    The EPA finds that this solution should appropriately be extended 
to apply to the five remaining states addressed in this rulemaking. 
This uniform regional approach applying the levels of stringency 
determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan is in keeping with the 
uniform stringency approach that the EPA has applied across linked 
upwind states in its ozone transport rulemakings beginning with the 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call. The EPA finds that this approach continues to 
effectively address the ``thorny'' causation problem of interstate 
pollution transport for regional-scale pollutants like ozone that 
transport over large distances and are affected by the vagaries of 
meteorology. EME Homer City, 572 U.S. at 514-16. It requires the most 
impactful sources in each State that has been found to contribute to 
ozone problems in other states to come up to minimum standards of 
environmental performance based on demonstrated NO<INF>X</INF> 
pollution-control technology. Id. at 519. As described in section V. of 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, when the effects of these emissions 
reductions are assessed collectively across the hundreds of EGU and 
non-EGU industrial sources that are subject to that rule, the 
cumulative improvements in ozone levels at downwind receptors, while 
they may vary to some extent, are both measurable and meaningful and 
will assist downwind areas in attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone 
NAAQS. In this rule, we find that in these five additional states, 
there are emissions reductions available at the costs and control 
levels identified in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and that these 
emissions reductions will likewise play a part in the meaningful air 
quality improvements that will assist downwind areas in attaining and 
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS and ensure that linked upwind states 
are held to resolving their fair share of the problem.
    As discussed in the following sub-sections, the EPA has evaluated 
the air quality effects of the different emissions control strategies 
identified. The receptors show measurable improvement in air quality at 
each incremental control stringency, up to and including the selected 
emissions control strategies for EGUs and non-EGUs. These analytic 
findings further confirm that the selected control stringency applied 
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states is also the appropriate 
control stringency to eliminate significant contribution for the 2015 
ozone NAAQS for these additional five states. In this proposal, for the 
states specifically included, the EPA also evaluates whether the 
proposal results in over-control by evaluating if an upwind State is 
linked solely to downwind air quality problems that could have been 
resolved at a lower cost threshold, or if an upwind State could have 
reduced its emissions below the 1 percent of NAAQS air quality 
contribution threshold at a lower cost threshold than identified in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The Agency finds no overcontrol from this 
proposal.
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
    As described in section VI.A. of this document, in Step 3, the 
multifactor test considers cost and air quality factors. In addition, 
in this proposed action the EPA continues to apply its longstanding 
approach of considering uniform level of NO<INF>X</INF> control 
stringency as foundational to the identification of emissions that 
significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of the ozone 
NAAQS, in light of the regional-scale, meteorological-variability, and 
long-range transport aspects of the ozone pollution problem. Thus, at a 
foundational level, the EPA views it as fundamentally equitable, 
efficient, and workable to extend the same emissions control strategies 
found necessary to eliminate significant contribution from 23 states 
already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five 
additional states. See EME Homer, 572 U.S. at 524.
    As described in section VI.A. of this document, in addition to 
being cost-effective on a cost per ton basis, the EPA's determination 
at Step 3 for both EGUs and non-EGUs is also informed by the overall 
level of emissions reductions that will be achieved and the effect 
those reductions are projected to have on air quality at the downwind 
receptors. The EPA also explained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
that, for EGUs, the EPA is also influenced by the fact that the 
emissions control strategies for EGUs are generally well-demonstrated 
to be achieved in practice at many existing units, as established 
through our review of the controls currently installed on the fleet of 
existing EGUs (see 88 FR at 36680). For non-EGUs, the EPA is also 
influenced by the fact that the emissions control strategies for non-
EGUs are generally well demonstrated to be achieved in practice at many 
existing units, as established through our review of consent decrees, 
permits, Reasonably Available Control Technologies determinations, and 
other data sources (see 88 FR at 36661).
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
    As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, to assess the air 
quality impacts of the various control stringencies at downwind 
receptors for the purposes of Step 3 in that rule, the EPA evaluated 
changes resulting from the emissions reductions associated with the 
identified emissions controls in each of the upwind states, as well as 
assumed corresponding reductions of similar stringency in the downwind 
State containing the receptor to which they are linked. By applying 
these emissions reductions to the State containing the receptor, the 
EPA assumed that the downwind State will implement (if it has not 
already) an emissions control stringency for its sources that is 
comparable to the upwind control stringency that was applied. 
Consequently, the EPA accounted for the downwind State's ``fair share'' 
of the responsibility for resolving a nonattainment or maintenance 
problem as a part of the over-control evaluation.\152\ As a result, the 
EPA estimated the air quality design values (both average and maximum 
design values) under both the base and control scenarios and, also, 
evaluated the air quality contributions from each State to each 
downwind monitor relative to the Step 2 contribution threshold. In this 
supplemental rule, for the Step 3 and over-control evaluations, the EPA 
applied the same framework using the data and tools from the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan (see the Good Neighbor Plan Ozone Transport Policy 
Analysis Final Rule TSD for details). As described in the next section, 
the EPA examined whether its findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
regarding stringency and overcontrol were robust to the updated

[[Page 12705]]

geographic coverage inclusive of the states identified in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ For EGUs, the analysis for the Connecticut receptors in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan shows no EGU reduction potential in 
Connecticut from the emissions reduction measures identified given 
that State's already low-emitting fleet; however, EGU reductions 
were identified in Colorado and these reductions were included in 
the over-control analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in section III.D.1. of this document, the EPA 
continues to use 2023 and 2026 as the analytical years to inform its 
evaluation of good neighbor obligations for these five additional 
states, since these years were selected and used in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan as aligned with the 2024 and 2027 attainment dates and to 
maintain consistency and ensure equity among all states. See 88 FR at 
36749-50.
3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
    For 2023, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the emissions 
reduction potential associated with each EGU emissions control 
technology (summarized in section VI.C. of this document) in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan to arrive at an appropriate level of 
stringency. The EPA uses the same framework for this supplemental 
action, and similarly determined that (1) there are available emissions 
reductions from these additional states in 2023, (2) they have a 
beneficial impact on downwind air quality at identified receptors, and 
(3) the updated geography, when incorporated into the multi-factor 
test, supports the same stringency or over control findings in this 
action as that of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA confirmed 
that the emissions reductions from the five states, in isolation and in 
combination with those from the states in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan, reduced ozone levels at downwind receptors. For 2023, the 
resulting average and maximum design values, adjusted relative to the 
modeled design values can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy 
Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA confirmed that these 
emissions reductions also do not result in the air quality 
contributions for any of the supplemental states dropping below the 
Step 2 air quality contribution threshold to all monitors to which the 
State is linked (see the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental 
Proposed Rule TSD for details). While the average improvement in 
downwind air quality improvement for these five states is expectedly 
smaller than that for the 22-state region of the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan's EGU control program, so too are the expected emissions 
reductions. Importantly, for individual State and receptor linkages, 
downwind air quality improvement was found (see the Ozone Transport 
Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD). Moreover, health 
benefits associated with just minor improvements in ozone 
concentrations far exceed the cost of such mitigation measures.
    Likewise, for 2026, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the 
emissions reduction potential associated with the EGU and non-EGU 
emissions control technologies (presented in sections IV.B. and VI.C. 
of this document). Arizona was the only State among the five states 
with more stringent measures applied in 2026 due to their continued 
expected linkage. The EPA confirmed that these emissions reductions, 
both individually and in combination with those from the states in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, had impacts on the air quality at downwind 
receptors. For 2026, the resulting average and maximum design values, 
adjusted relative to the modeled design values, can be found in the 
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA 
confirmed that these emissions reductions also do not result in the air 
quality contributions from Arizona dropping below the Step 2 air 
quality contribution threshold for all of its remaining receptors (see 
the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplement Proposal for 
details).\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ The EPA's comprehensive Step 3 analysis for the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan specifically evaluated all states contributing 
above the threshold to each individual monitor. This included each 
of the five supplemental states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, 
and Tennessee) even though they were not regulated in that 
rulemaking. These states had their emissions adjusted when their air 
quality contributions were greater than or equal to 1 percent of the 
NAAQS for each individual downwind monitor in that action. Thus, 
they were already aligned with EPA's GNP Step 3 conclusion even 
prior to their re-examination in this action. While the results 
below highlight the collective impact of the updated geography, 
consistent with the final GNP Step 3 analysis, the segmental air 
quality benefits pertaining to the emissions reductions from these 
five states can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis 
Supplemental Proposed TSD and corresponding files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Conclusions
    Considering the cost and air quality factors described above, with 
respect to emissions reductions available in the near term, the EPA 
proposes that the 2023 control stringency for EGUs identified for 22 
states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitutes the emissions 
reductions that comprise each of these five states' interference with 
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For all affected 
supplemental states, this control stringency reflects the optimization 
of existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-
art NO<INF>X</INF> combustion controls, which are widely available at a 
representative cost of $1,800 per ton. The EPA's evaluation also shows 
that the effective emissions rate performance across affected EGUs 
consistent with realization of these mitigation measures has 
substantial air quality benefits and does not over-control upwind 
states' emissions relative to either the downwind air quality problems 
to which they are linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution 
threshold at Step 2. This strategy will fully resolve obligations for 
the states of Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
    Similarly, in the case of extended implementation control measures, 
the EPA proposes that the 2026 control stringencies for EGUs and non-
EGUs finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitute the 
emissions reductions that comprise the full elimination of Arizona's 
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. 
For Arizona, this control stringency reflects the installation of new 
SCR post-combustion controls at coal steam sources greater than or 
equal to 100 Megawatts (MW) and for a more limited portion of the oil/
gas steam fleet that had higher levels of emissions. As described in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, for EGUs, in addition to the 
optimization of existing post-combustion controls and installation of 
state-of-the-art NO<INF>X</INF> combustion controls these SCR retrofits 
are appropriate for Arizona's linkages which persist and interfere with 
downwind areas' ability to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Serious 
nonattainment date (i.e., through the 2026 ozone season) at $11,000 and 
$7,700 per ton respectively. This control stringency also includes the 
estimated emissions reductions from certain non-EGUs. These emissions 
reductions for non-EGU sources are estimated to cost an average of 
$5,457/ton, which is approximately half the representative uniform cost 
threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs.
    Furthermore, the EPA's evaluation shows that the effective 
emissions rate performance across EGUs and non-EGUs consistent with the 
full realization of these mitigation measures reduces ozone levels at 
the receptors to which Arizona is linked and does not over-control 
Arizona's emissions in 2026 relative to either the downwind air quality 
problems to which it is linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution 
threshold at Step 2.

VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation

A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs

    To implement the required emissions reductions from EGUs in 
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee, the EPA in this 
rulemaking is proposing

[[Page 12706]]

to expand the geographic scope of the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 Trading Program (``Group 3 trading program'') to include 
sources in these five states. Refer to section VI.B.1. of the preamble 
of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for a general discussion of the use 
of allowance trading programs to achieve required emissions reductions 
from the electric power sector and an overview of the Group 3 trading 
program's enhancements to maintain the selected control stringency over 
time and to improve emissions performance at individual units.
    The EPA is not proposing to alter the Group 3 trading program 
design elements finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is 
proposing to extend the program and its design elements to apply to 
sources in these five additional states. These design elements include 
the methodology for determining preset State emissions budgets for the 
2023-2029 control periods, the methodology for determining dynamic 
State emissions budgets for control periods in 2026 and onwards, the 
annual recalibration of the Group 3 allowance bank, the unit-specific 
backstop daily emissions rate, the unit-specific emissions limitations 
contingent on assurance level exceedances, and monitoring and reporting 
requirements. The EPA provided opportunity for comment on these design 
elements in the public comment period following the proposal of the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Following feedback from many commenters 
throughout the country, the EPA finalized the design elements with some 
modifications, and section VI.B. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
preamble provides robust discussion of changes made in response to 
comments. The EPA additionally carefully evaluated and comprehensively 
responded to comments in the Response to Comment document included in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan docket. In general, the Agency considers 
any issues associated with the application of the Group 3 Trading 
Program in these five additional states to be within the scope of this 
action. The EPA does not propose changes in the basic design elements 
that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and is not aware 
of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach in 
extending these provisions to these five additional states. Throughout 
the remainder of this section, where the EPA has identified particular 
issues that are clearly within the scope of this proposal, it has noted 
its invitation to comment.
    For the reasons explained in section VI.B.1. of this document, the 
EPA proposes that only the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> strategies of fully 
operating existing SCRs and SNCRs, and upgrading to state-of-the-art 
combustion controls are possible for the 2025 ozone season. Based on an 
assumption that this proposed action may be finalized sometime in the 
summer of 2024, the first ozone season in which these strategies can be 
implemented is the 2025 ozone season.
    Regarding the strategy of retrofitting SCR controls, as the EPA 
described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR 
installation at EGUs can occur over a 36-48 month period, taking into 
account the fleetwide nature of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. 
However, the Agency also recognizes that individual SCR installations 
at EGUs are capable of being completed on shorter timeframes (as little 
as 21 months), and this proposed action only analyzes SCR-retrofit 
potential on EGUs for a single state, Arizona. Recognizing that this 
proposal may be finalized sometime in the summer of 2024, the EPA 
proposes that some amount of SCR-retrofit potential could be 
accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season, which would be just 
shy of a 3-year time period. The EPA also recognizes that the Serious 
area attainment date falls on August 3, 2027, and that good neighbor 
obligations should be addressed, if at all possible, no later than this 
date. Taking all of these considerations into account, the EPA proposes 
that SCR retrofits at EGUs in Arizona can be phased in over two ozone 
seasons, 2027 and 2028. This generally aligns with the 36-48 month 
estimate in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
    Thus, the EPA is proposing that EGU sources located in Arizona, 
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the 
states' borders) will participate in the Group 3 trading program 
starting with the 2025 ozone season, which runs from May 1, 2025, to 
September 30, 2025, and continuing in each ozone season after 2025. 
Sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the 
states' borders), which currently participate in the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (``Group 2 trading 
program''), would not be required to participate in the Group 2 trading 
program with respect to emissions occurring after 2024.\154\ The EPA 
invites comment on its proposed compliance start dates for these five 
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ The EPA would consider these EGUs' participation in the 
Group 3 trading program as satisfying their states' good neighbor 
obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and for Tennessee, 
the 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS as well) to the same extent that the 
states' obligations are currently being met through the EGUs' 
participation in the Group 2 trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of this section discusses the potentially affected 
units and the changes the EPA is proposing to synchronize the 
integration and participation of sources in these five states into the 
Group 3 trading program.
1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected Units
    The Group 3 trading program applies to any stationary, fossil-fuel-
fired boiler or stationary, fossil fuel-fired combustion turbine 
located in a covered State (or Indian country within the borders of a 
covered state) and serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a 
generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MW producing 
electricity for sale, with exemptions for certain cogeneration units 
and certain solid waste incineration units. The complete text of the 
Group 3 trading program's applicability provisions (including the 
exemptions) and the associated definitions can be found at 40 CFR 
97.1004 and 40 CFR 97.1002, respectively.
    The EPA is not proposing any changes to the Group 3 trading 
program's applicability provisions in this rulemaking. The 
applicability criteria for the Group 2 and Group 3 trading programs are 
identical, with the result that any units in Iowa, Kansas, and 
Tennessee (including units in Indian country within the borders of such 
states) that are already subject to the Group 2 trading program would 
also become subject to the Group 3 trading program. Further, the EPA 
expects that any units in Arizona and New Mexico (including units in 
Indian country within the borders of such states) that are already 
subject to the Acid Rain Program under that program's applicability 
criteria (see 40 CFR 72.6), would also meet the applicability criteria 
for the Group 3 trading program.
    Because the applicability criteria for the Acid Rain Program and 
the Group 3 trading program are not identical, some units that are not 
subject to the Acid Rain Program could meet the applicability criteria 
for the Group 3 trading program. Using data reported to the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, the EPA has identified nine sources in 
Arizona and New Mexico with a total of 23 units that that do not 
currently report NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and operating data to the EPA 
under the

[[Page 12707]]

Acid Rain Program but that appear to meet the applicability criteria 
for the Group 3 trading program. The units are listed in Table VII.A.1-
1. For each of these units, the table shows the estimated historical 
heat input and emissions data that the EPA proposes to use for the unit 
when determining State emissions budgets if the unit is ultimately 
treated as subject to the Group 3 trading program.

                                              Table VII.A.1-1--Selected Potentially Affected Existing Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Estimated ozone
                                                                                                                        Estimated ozone     season NOX
              State                  Facility ID      Facility name             Unit ID                Unit type          season heat     emissions rate
                                                                                                                         input (mmBtu)      (lb/mmBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona..........................             141  Agua Fria..........  AF4...................  CT....................           15,443            0.346
Arizona..........................             141  Agua Fria..........  AF5...................  CT....................           13,659            0.345
Arizona..........................             141  Agua Fria..........  AF6...................  CT....................           13,659            0.375
Arizona..........................             160  Apache.............  GT3...................  CT....................          633,453            0.135
Arizona..........................             147  Kyrene.............  KY4...................  CT....................            2,317            0.106
Arizona..........................             147  Kyrene.............  KY5...................  CT....................            5,326            0.499
Arizona..........................             147  Kyrene.............  KY6...................  CT....................            5,326            0.322
Arizona..........................             116  Ocotillo...........  GT1...................  CT....................        1,752,453            0.016
Arizona..........................             116  Ocotillo...........  GT2...................  CT....................        1,752,453            0.006
Arizona..........................             118  Saguaro............  GT1...................  CT....................          284,976            0.161
Arizona..........................             118  Saguaro............  GT2...................  CT....................          284,976            0.049
Arizona..........................            8068  Santan.............  ST1...................  CC....................        1,037,153            0.037
Arizona..........................            8068  Santan.............  ST2...................  CC....................        1,037,153            0.067
Arizona..........................            8068  Santan.............  ST3...................  CC....................        1,037,153            0.052
Arizona..........................            8068  Santan.............  ST4...................  CC....................        1,037,153            0.036
Arizona..........................             117  West Phoenix.......  1B....................  CC....................        1,064,206            0.446
Arizona..........................             117  West Phoenix.......  2B....................  CC....................        1,064,206            0.444
Arizona..........................             117  West Phoenix.......  3B....................  CC....................        1,064,206            0.053
Arizona..........................             117  West Phoenix.......  GT1...................  CT....................           12,125            0.165
Arizona..........................             117  West Phoenix.......  GT2...................  CT....................           12,125            0.806
Arizona..........................             120  Yucca..............  GT3...................  CT....................          587,371            0.140
Arizona..........................             120  Yucca..............  GT4...................  CT....................          587,371            0.018
New Mexico.......................            2446  Maddox.............  2.....................  CT....................           62,445            0.309
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on which existing units in Arizona and New 
Mexico and Indian country within the borders of each State would or 
would not meet the applicability criteria for the Group 3 trading 
program. The EPA also requests comment, with supporting data, on 
whether the estimated historical heat input and emissions data 
identified for each unit in Table VII.A.1-1 are representative for the 
unit.
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
    The Group 3 trading program as revised in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan provides for both preset and dynamic State emissions budgets. 
Preset emissions budgets were determined in the rulemaking for all 
states for the control periods in the years through 2029, and dynamic 
emissions budgets are computed according to procedures set forth in 40 
CFR 97.1010(a) for each control period starting with the 2026 control 
period. In the control periods for the years from 2026 through 2029, 
the emissions budget for each State will be the higher of the preset 
emissions budget or the dynamic emissions budget computed for the State 
for that control period. The variability limit for each State for each 
control period is determined as a percentage of the State's emissions 
budget for the control period in accordance with 40 CFR 97.1010(e), and 
the State's assurance level for the control period is the sum of the 
emissions budget and the variability limit. This same system for 
determining State emissions budgets, variability limits, and assurance 
levels would also apply to the five states that would be added to the 
Group 3 trading program in this rulemaking.
    In this proposal, the EPA is presenting the proposed preset State 
ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budgets for covered EGUs in 
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee for the control 
periods in 2025 through 2029. For all five states, starting with the 
2025 control period, the State emissions budgets would reflect 
emissions reductions achievable through optimization of installed 
controls and installation of new state-of-the-art combustion controls. 
In addition, for Arizona but not for the other four states, the 
emissions reductions achievable through the installation and operation 
of new SCR controls would be phased in starting with the preset and 
dynamic budgets for the 2027 control periods and would be fully 
reflected in the preset and dynamic budgets for 2028 and later control 
periods. As noted previously, the EPA is not proposing changes in the 
methodologies used to establish the preset or dynamic State emissions 
budgets, the variability limits, or the assurance levels. The EPA is 
not aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative 
approach in extending these provisions to these five additional states. 
Rather, the EPA is requesting comment on the preset State ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budgets calculated using these methodologies. 
The preset State emissions budgets for control periods 2025-2029 are 
presented in Table VII.A.2-1.

[[Page 12708]]



                       Table VII.A.2-1--Proposed Preset State Emissions Budgets, 2025-2029
                                                     [tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2025            2026            2027            2028            2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.........................           8,195           5,814           4,913           3,949           3,949
Iowa............................           9,752           9,713           9,713           9,713           9,077
Kansas..........................           4,763           4,763           4,763           4,763           4,763
New Mexico......................           2,211           2,008           2,008           2,008           2,008
Tennessee.......................           3,983           3,983           2,666           2,130           1,198
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
    Under the Group 3 trading program, in advance of each control 
period, a portion of each State's emissions budget for the control 
period is reserved as a set-aside for potential allocation to new units 
and the unreserved portion of the budget is then allocated among the 
state's existing units. If there are existing units in areas of Indian 
country within a State's borders not subject to the State's SIP 
authority, allocations to those units are made through Indian country 
existing unit set-asides.\155\ After each control period, the new unit 
set-aside is allocated among any units qualifying for allocations 
within the State's borders (including areas of Indian country) and any 
remaining allowances are reallocated among the existing units. In 
almost all cases, the allocations to set-asides, to existing units, and 
to new units are made according to procedures laid out in the 
regulations at 40 CFR 97.1010 through 97.1012. The exception is that 
for control periods where the final State emissions budgets are 
established in the related rulemaking--e.g., the 2025 control period--
the set-asides and allocations to existing units are also established 
in the related rulemaking, using the same allocation procedure 
applicable to later control periods. This same system for allocating 
allowances from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan would also apply to the 
five states that would be added to the Group 3 trading program in this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ The EPA is aware of four existing EGUs in Indian country 
that would be covered under this rulemaking's proposed expansion of 
the Group 3 trading program: South Point Units A and B in the Fort 
Mojave Reservation within Arizona's borders, and Four Corners Units 
4 and 5 in the Navajo Reservation within New Mexico's borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the same methodology used to determine the percentages of 
the budgets set aside for new units for other states in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is proposing that the percentages of the 
budgets set aside for new units for the five proposed additional states 
would be the default of 5 percent for each of the states for all 
control periods, except for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and 
2026, for which the percentage would be 11 percent. The EPA is also 
presenting the proposed unit-level allocations to existing units in the 
newly added states for the 2025 control period. The methodology and 
procedures used to determine new unit set-aside percentages and unit-
level allocations are described in section VI.B.9. of the preamble to 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and in the ``Addendum to the Allowance 
Allocation Under the Final Rule TSD for the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan'' TSD available in the docket for this action. The EPA's 
allocations and allocation procedures apply for the 2025 control 
period, and, by default, for subsequent control periods unless and 
until a State or tribe provides state- or tribe-determined allowance 
allocations under an approved SIP revision or Tribal implementation 
plan.\156\ The EPA is taking comment only on the data inputs (e.g., 
corrections to the heat input value used for a particular unit) used in 
applying the allowance allocation methodology for existing units and on 
the resulting existing unit allocations proposed for the five proposed 
additional states. The EPA is not proposing changes in the 
methodologies used for allowance allocation and for establishing set-
asides determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is not 
aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach 
in extending these provisions to these five additional states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ The options for states to submit SIP revisions that would 
replace the EPA's default allowance allocations are discussed in 
sections VII.C.1., VII.C.2., and VII.C.3. of this document. 
Similarly, for a covered area of Indian country not subject to a 
State's CAA implementation planning authority, a tribe could elect 
to work with the EPA under the Tribal Authority Rule to develop a 
full or partial Tribal implementation plan under which the tribe 
would determine allowance allocations that would replace the EPA's 
default allocations for subsequent control periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
    In general, sources in the proposed additional states would face 
the same compliance requirements as sources in states already covered 
by the Group 3 trading program, but the EPA is proposing three 
exceptions. The first exception concerns the timing with which elements 
of the selected emissions control strategy are reflected in the State 
emissions budgets. As discussed in section VI. of this document, the 
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable for the State emissions 
budgets to reflect emissions reductions achievable from new combustion 
controls starting in the 2025 control period and emissions reductions 
achievable from new SCR controls phased in over the 2027-2028 control 
periods. These proposed timing determinations, which are necessarily 
later than the corresponding timing determinations for sources in 
states already covered by the Group 3 trading program, would be 
reflected in the preset and dynamic State emissions budgets for the 
proposed additional states, as discussed in section VII.A.2. of this 
document.
    The second exception concerns the timing of the application of the 
backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate provisions. For units in 
the proposed additional states with existing SCR controls, the EPA 
proposes that these provisions would apply starting in the 2026 control 
period, which would be the units' second control period in the revised 
Group 3 trading program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR 
controls, the backstop rate provision would apply in the second control 
period in which such controls are operated, but not later than the 2030 
control period. These proposed schedules would reflect the same 
principles used to determine the schedules for units with and without 
existing SCR controls in the states already in the program. The 
backstop rate provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR 
controls in Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units 
choose to install such controls, in which case the backstop rate 
provisions would apply starting in the second control period in which 
such controls are operated) because the emissions control stringency 
identified as appropriate for those states to address the states' good 
neighbor obligations

[[Page 12709]]

does not include the installation of new SCR controls.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is 
proposing to make technical corrections to the backstop rate 
provisions to ensure that the provisions would not inadvertently 
apply to units without existing SCR controls in any State for which 
the EPA's identified emissions control stringency does not include 
the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third exception concerns the timing of the application of the 
maximum controlled baseline provisions which potentially cap allowance 
allocations to individual units. For units in the proposed additional 
states with existing SCR controls, the EPA proposes that these 
provisions would apply starting in the 2025 control period, which would 
be the units' first full control period in the revised Group 3 trading 
program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR controls, the 
maximum controlled baseline provisions would apply starting with the 
2028 control period, which would be the first year in which the Arizona 
State emissions budget would fully reflect the emissions reductions 
achievable through the installation of new SCR controls. Again, these 
proposed schedules would reflect the same principles used to determine 
the schedules for units with and without existing SCR controls in the 
states already in the program. The maximum controlled baseline 
provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR controls in 
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units choose to 
install such controls) because the emissions control stringency 
identified for those states as necessary to address the states' good 
neighbor obligations does not include the installation of new SCR 
controls.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is 
proposing to make technical corrections to the maximum controlled 
baseline provisions to ensure that the provisions would not 
inadvertently apply to units without existing SCR controls in any 
State for which the EPA's identified emissions control stringency 
does not include the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed timing of the backstop 
daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate provisions and the maximum 
controlled baseline provisions for sources in the proposed additional 
states.
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025 
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025 
Control Period
    In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA created an initial bank 
of 2023 Group 3 allowances available to sources in states newly added 
to the Group 3 trading program by converting banked 2017-2022 Group 2 
allowances. Similarly, in this rulemaking the EPA proposes to create an 
initial bank of 2025 Group 3 allowances available to sources in the 
proposed additional states by converting banked 2017-2024 Group 2 
allowances. The target quantity of banked 2025 Group 3 allowances to be 
created would be 21 percent of the sum of the 2025 State emissions 
budgets of the newly added states. The allowances to be converted would 
be all 2017-2024 Group 2 allowances held in the facility accounts of 
sources in the newly added states as of the conversion date, which is 
proposed to be 45 days after the effective date of a final rule in this 
rulemaking. The conversion ratio would be the total quantity of 2017-
2024 Group 2 allowances being converted divided by the target quantity 
of 2025 Group 3 allowances being created, but not less than 1.0.
    The EPA's rationale for proposing to create an initial allowance 
bank available to the sources in newly added states is generally the 
same as the rationale for creating the similar bank under the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan. The limited differences between the two bank 
creation processes are attributable to changes in circumstances and are 
fully consistent with that rationale. First, because the emissions 
reductions achievable through installation of combustion controls would 
be reflected in the budgets for the newly added States' first control 
period in the program, the allowance bank target would be based on the 
first year's budgets rather than the second year's budgets. Second, 
because the EPA expects that the effective date of a final rule will 
not fall partway through an ozone season, there is no need in this 
proposal to plan for prorating of the allowance bank target quantity. 
Finally, because the sources in the newly added states would represent 
a minority of the sources currently participating in the Group 2 
trading program, this proposal would not convert Group 2 allowances 
held in general accounts. For further discussion of the rationale for 
the proposed bank creation, see section VI.B.12.b. of the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan preamble.
    In addition to providing for the creation of an initial Group 3 
allowance bank through the conversion of banked Group 2 allowances, the 
EPA is also proposing an adjustment to the Group 3 trading program's 
bank recalibration provisions for the 2025 control period to coordinate 
those provisions with the proposed addition of the five additional 
states. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to exclude the five newly 
added states' 2025 budgets when calculating the bank ceiling target 
used to determine whether any bank recalibration for the 2025 control 
period will occur. The reason for this proposed change is that because 
the initial bank creation process described in the preceding paragraphs 
of this section (section VII.A.5. of this document) would separately 
create a quantity of banked allowances for 2025 of up to 21 percent of 
the newly added states' emissions budgets, to ensure that the overall 
quantity of banked allowances available for use in the entire Group 3 
trading program in the 2025 control period is no more than 21 percent 
of the emissions budgets of all states covered by the program in 2025, 
the bank ceiling target used in the bank recalibration process for 
other banked allowances carried over into the 2025 control period in 
the Group 3 trading program would need to be limited to 21 percent of 
the budgets for the states other than the newly added states. For 2026 
and later control periods, the bank ceiling target will be calculated 
for all states in the Group 3 trading program using the State emissions 
budgets for all covered states.
    The EPA requests comment on the proposed creation of an initial 
Group 3 allowance bank and the proposed adjustment to the Group 3 
allowance bank recalibration for the 2025 control period.

B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs

    As summarized in section II.B. of this document, the EPA finalized 
requirements for emissions unit types in the following nine non-EGU 
industries (industrial sources) in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan: RICE 
in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement 
Product Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and 
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product 
Manufacturing; boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing, 
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and 
Paperboard Mills; and combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste 
Combustors and Incinerators. The EPA determined these are the most 
impactful types of units in the relevant industries and that emissions 
reductions are achievable with the control technologies identified in 
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and 
further discussed in the Final Non-EGU Sectors TSD. The rationale 
behind the applicability criteria, emissions limits, and additional 
regulatory requirements for each industry can also be found in

[[Page 12710]]

sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The 
emissions control requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 
non-EGU sources apply only during the ozone season (May through 
September) each year.
    In this document, the EPA proposes to extend these regulatory 
requirements to affected units within the State of Arizona under the 
same rationale provided in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These 
proposed FIP requirements for Arizona apply to both new and existing 
emissions units in the State. This approach will ensure that all new 
and existing emissions units in Arizona that meet the applicability 
criteria will be subject to the same good neighbor requirements that 
apply to new and existing units under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
for other covered states, in a manner that is wholly consistent with 
the determination of significant contribution and interference with 
maintenance at Step 3 (see section VI. of this document). Applying this 
same uniform set of control requirements will also avoid creating, 
inadvertently or intentionally, any incentives to shift production (and 
therefore emissions) from an existing non-EGU source to a new non-EGU 
source of the same type but lacking the relevant emissions control 
requirements either within a linked State or in another linked state, 
including the State of Arizona. The rationale behind the applicability 
criteria, emissions limits, and additional regulatory requirements for 
each industry can be found in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
    The EPA does not propose to make any changes in the non-EGU 
requirements that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as 
applicable to this one additional state. (The EPA does propose to make 
certain corrections in the regulatory text as applicable in all states 
that are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU 
provisions, as discussed in section X. of this document.) The EPA 
proposes to extend these requirements to cover one additional state, 
Arizona. The EPA is not aware of any circumstances that would justify 
an alternative approach in extending these provisions to Arizona, which 
were already finalized to apply in other covered states on a uniform 
basis. However, the public is invited to comment on the proposed 
application of these requirements in Arizona.
    Similar to the EPA's adjustment in the compliance schedule for 
EGUs, the EPA proposes that compliance with non-EGU requirements in 
Arizona can be accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season. This 
is 1 year later than the onset of these compliance obligations for 
states that currently are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. 
This reflects findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan that all non-
EGU emissions control strategies can generally be implemented within a 
3-year timeframe. Three years from when this proposal may be finalized 
in 2024 roughly correlates to the 2027 ozone season. Respecting the 
potential need for compliance extensions beyond this ozone season, this 
proposal likewise includes the availability of compliance extensions 
under 40 CFR 52.40(d) (as well as the availability of alternative 
emissions limits under 40 CFR 52.40(e)). The dates associated with 
filing applications under these provisions, as well as for making other 
filings and demonstrations in association with compliance with the non-
EGU requirements, are proposed to be adjusted from the dates finalized 
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and generally are proposed to align 
with the 2027 ozone season. (The Agency anticipates and acknowledges 
that the dates associated for compliance in the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan for other states where that rule is currently stayed pending 
judicial review will likewise need to be reviewed and adjusted through 
rulemaking action.) The Agency invites comment on its proposal that 
compliance with emissions limits for covered non-EGU sources in Arizona 
will be required beginning on May 1, 2027.

C. Submitting a SIP

    Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, a State may submit a SIP at 
any time to address CAA requirements that are covered by a FIP, and if 
the EPA approves the SIP submission it would replace the FIP, in whole 
or in part, as appropriate. As discussed in this section, states may 
opt for one of several alternatives that the EPA has provided to take 
over all or portions of the FIP. However, as discussed in greater 
detail further in this section of the document, the EPA also recognizes 
that states retain the discretion to develop SIPs to replace a FIP 
under approaches that differ from those the EPA finalizes.
    The EPA has established certain specialized provisions for 
replacing FIPs with SIPs within all the CSAPR trading programs, 
including the use of so-called ``abbreviated SIPs'' and ``full SIPs,'' 
see 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and (5) and (b)(4), (5), (8), (9), (11), and 
(12); 40 CFR 52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i). For a State to remove all FIP 
provisions through an approved SIP revision, a State would need to 
address all required reductions addressed by the FIP for that state, 
i.e., reductions achieved through both EGU control and non-EGU control, 
as applicable to that state. Additionally, tribes in Indian country 
within the geographic scope of this rule may elect to work with the EPA 
under the Tribal Authority Rule to replace the FIP for areas of Indian 
country, in whole or in part, with a Tribal implementation plan or 
reasonably severable portions of a Tribal implementation plan.
    Consistent with the options provided to states included in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, under the FIPs for the five states in this 
proposed rule whose EGUs are required to participate in the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA proposes 
to offer ``abbreviated'' and ``full'' SIP submission options for 
states. An ``abbreviated SIP'' would allow a State to submit a SIP 
revision that establishes state-determined allowance allocation 
provisions replacing the default FIP allocation provisions but leaving 
the remaining FIP provisions in place. A ``full SIP'' would allow a 
State to adopt a trading program meeting certain requirements that 
allow sources in the State to continue to use the EPA-administered 
trading program through an approved SIP revision, rather than a FIP. In 
addition, as under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and past CSAPR 
rulemakings, the EPA proposes that newly added states have the option 
to adopt state-determined allowance allocations for existing units for 
the second control period under this rule--in this case, the 2026 
control period--through streamlined SIP revisions. See 76 FR 48326-
48332 for additional discussion of full and abbreviated SIP options; 
see also 40 CFR 52.38(b).
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading Program
    As with the start of past CSAPR rulemakings, the EPA proposes the 
option to allow a newly added State to use a similar process to submit 
a SIP revision establishing allowance allocations for existing EGU 
units in the State for the second control period of the new 
requirements, i.e., in 2026, to replace the EPA-determined default 
allocations. A State would have to submit a letter to the EPA by 15 
days after the effective date of a final rule in this rulemaking 
indicating its intent to submit a complete SIP revision by April 1, 
2025. The SIP revision would provide, in an EPA-prescribed format, a 
list of existing units within the State and their allocations for the 
2026 control period. If a State does not submit a letter of intent to 
submit a SIP revision, or if a State submits a timely

[[Page 12711]]

letter of intent but fails to submit a SIP revision, the EPA-determined 
default allocations would be recorded by July 1, 2025. If a State 
submits a timely letter of intent followed by a timely SIP revision 
that is approved, the approved SIP revision allocations would be 
recorded by October 1, 2025.
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under EGU 
Trading Program
    For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA also proposes that 
newly added states in the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
Trading Program could submit a SIP revision that makes changes only to 
the allowance allocation provisions while relying on the FIP for the 
remaining provisions of the EGU trading program.\159\ This abbreviated 
SIP option would allow states to tailor the FIP to their individual 
choices while maintaining the FIP-based structure of the trading 
program. To ensure the availability of allowance allocations for units 
in any Indian country within a State not covered by the State's CAA 
implementation planning authority, if the State chose to replace the 
EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA 
would continue to administer any portion of each State emissions budget 
reserved as a new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit 
set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already 
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option, 
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP submission deadline for this type of revision would be 
December 1, 2025, if the State intends for the SIP revision to be 
effective beginning with the 2027 control period. For states that 
submit this type of SIP revision, the deadline to submit state-
determined allocations beginning with the 2027 control period under an 
approved SIP would be June 1, 2026, and the deadline for the EPA to 
record those allocations would be July 1, 2026. Similarly, a State 
could submit a SIP revision beginning with the 2028 control period and 
beyond by December 1, 2026, with State allocations for the 2028 control 
period due June 1, 2027, and the EPA's recordation of the allocations 
due by July 1, 2027.
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an 
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
    For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA proposes that newly 
added states in the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading 
Program could choose to replace the Federal EGU trading program with an 
integrated State EGU trading program through an approved SIP 
revision.\160\ Under this full SIP option, a State could submit a SIP 
revision that makes changes only to modify the EPA-determined default 
allocations while adopting identical provisions for the remaining 
portions of the EGU trading program. This SIP option would allow states 
to replace these FIP provisions with state-based SIP provisions while 
continuing participation in the larger regional trading program. As 
with the abbreviated SIP option discussed previously, to ensure the 
availability of allowance allocations for units in any Indian country 
within a State not covered by the State's CAA implementation planning 
authority, if the State chooses to replace the EPA's default 
allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA would continue 
to administer any portion of each State emissions budget reserved as a 
new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already 
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option, 
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deadlines for this type of SIP revision would be the same as the 
deadlines for abbreviated SIP revisions. For the SIP-based program to 
start with the 2027 control period, the SIP revision deadline would be 
December 1, 2025, the deadline to submit state-determined allocations 
for the 2027 control period under an approved SIP would be June 1, 
2026, and the deadline for the EPA to record those allocations would be 
July 1, 2026, and so on.
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
    States can submit SIP revisions to replace the FIP that achieve the 
necessary EGU emissions reductions but do not use the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. For a transport 
SIP revision that does not use the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA would evaluate the transport SIP 
revision based on the particular control strategies selected and 
whether the strategies as a whole provide adequate and enforceable 
provisions ensuring that the necessary emissions reductions (i.e., 
reductions equal to or greater than what the Group 3 trading program 
will achieve) will be achieved. To address the applicable CAA 
requirements, the SIP revision should include the following general 
elements: (1) a comprehensive baseline 2023 statewide NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions inventory (which includes existing control requirements), 
which should be consistent with the 2023 emissions inventory that the 
EPA used to calculate the required State budget in this final proposed 
rule (unless the State can explain the discrepancy); (2) a list and 
description of control measures to satisfy the State emissions 
reduction obligation and a demonstration showing when each measure 
would be implemented to meet the 2025 and successive compliance 
deadlines; (3) fully-adopted State rules providing for such 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls during the ozone season; (4) for EGUs larger 
than 25 MW, monitoring and reporting under 40 CFR part 75, and for 
other units, monitoring and reporting procedures sufficient to 
demonstrate that sources are complying with the SIP (see 40 CFR part 
51, subpart K (``source surveillance'' requirements)); and (5) a 
projected inventory demonstrating that State measures along with 
Federal measures will achieve the necessary emissions reductions in 
time to meet the 2025 and successive compliance deadlines (e.g., 
enforceable reductions commensurate with installation of SCR on coal-
fired EGUs by the 2027 ozone season). The SIPs must meet procedural 
requirements under the Act, such as the requirements for public 
hearing, be adopted by the appropriate State board or authority, and 
establish by a practically enforceable regulation or permit(s) a 
schedule and date for each affected source or source category to 
achieve compliance. Once the State has made a SIP submission, the EPA 
will evaluate the submission(s) for completeness before acting on the 
SIP submission. EPA's criteria for determining completeness of a SIP 
submission are codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    For further background information on considerations for replacing 
a FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76 
FR 48326).
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source Control 
Requirements
    Just as with the EGU requirements discussed in section VII.C.1.-4. 
of this document, the EPA's finalization of this proposed interstate 
ozone transport FIP for Arizona would in no way affect the ability of 
the State to submit, for review and approval, a SIP that replaces the 
requirements of the FIP with State requirements. To replace the non-EGU 
portion of the FIP in a state, the State's SIP submission must provide 
adequate provisions to prohibit NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The State SIP submission 
must demonstrate that the

[[Page 12712]]

emissions reductions required by the SIP would continue to ensure that 
significant contribution and interference with maintenance from that 
State has been eliminated through permanent and enforceable measures. 
The non-EGU requirements of the FIP would remain in place in each 
covered State until a State's SIP submission has been approved by the 
EPA to replace the FIP.
    The most straightforward method for a State to submit a 
presumptively approvable SIP revision to replace the non-EGU portion of 
the FIPs for the State would be to provide a SIP revision that includes 
emissions limits at an equivalent or greater level of stringency than 
is specified for non-EGU sources meeting the applicability criteria and 
associated compliance assurance provisions for each of the unit types 
identified in section VI.C. of this document. However, states are also 
free to develop alternative approaches to eliminating significant 
contribution and interference with maintenance in other states, so long 
as they are shown to be equivalent to the Federal plan they replace. 
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan contains a more detailed discussion of 
factors and considerations associated with replacing a good neighbor 
FIP. See 88 FR at 36842-43.

D. Title V Permitting

    As with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, as well as other previous 
good neighbor rules, like the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the Revised 
CSAPR Update, this proposed rule would not establish any permitting 
requirements independent of those under Title V of the CAA and the 
regulations implementing Title V, 40 CFR parts 70 and 71.\161\ All 
major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are 
required to apply for title V operating permits that include emissions 
limitations and other conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with 
the applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of 
the applicable SIP. CAA sections 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a) 
and 7661c(a). The ``applicable requirements'' that must be addressed in 
title V permits are defined in the title V regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 
71.2 (definition of ``applicable requirement'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ Part 70 addresses requirements for State title V programs, 
and Part 71 governs the Federal title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units subject to 
this final rule, most if not all of the sources at which the units are 
located are already subject to title V permitting requirements and 
already possess a title V operating permit. For sources subject to 
title V, the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS 
that are applicable to them under the FIPs proposed in this action 
would be ``applicable requirements'' under title V and therefore must 
be addressed in the title V permits. For example, EGU requirements 
concerning designated representatives, monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions, 
the compliance assurance provisions, and liability, and for non-EGUs, 
the emissions limits and compliance requirements are, to the extent 
relevant to each source, ``applicable requirements'' that must be 
addressed in the permits.
    Consistent with EPA's approach under the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan, the applicable requirements resulting from the FIPs generally 
would have to be incorporated into affected sources' existing title V 
permits either pursuant to the provisions for reopening for cause (40 
CFR 70.7(f) and 71.7(f)), significant modifications (40 CFR 70.7(e)(4)) 
or the standard permit renewal provisions (40 CFR 70.7(c) and 
71.7(c)).\162\ For sources newly subject to title V that would be 
affected sources under the FIPs, the initial title V permit issued 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a) would address the final FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ A permit is reopened for cause if any new applicable 
requirements (such as those under a FIP) become applicable to an 
affected source with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If 
the remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such new applicable 
requirements will be added to the permit during permit renewal. See 
40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was the case in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the new and 
amended FIPs would impose no independent permitting requirements and 
the title V permitting process would impose no additional burden on 
sources already required to be permitted under title V. More detailed 
title V permitting considerations for both EGUs and non-EGUs are 
provided in section VI.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.

VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and Outreach

A. Environmental Justice

    Demographic proximity analyses allow one to assess the potentially 
vulnerable populations residing nearby affected facilities as an 
indicator of exposure and the potential for adverse health impacts that 
may occur at a local scale due to economic activity at a given location 
including noise, odors, traffic, and emissions such as NO<INF>2</INF>, 
covered under this EPA action and not modeled elsewhere in this EIA.
    Although baseline proximity analyses are presented here for the 
supplemental rule, several important caveats should be noted. In most 
areas, emissions are not expected to increase from the rulemaking, so 
most communities nearby affected facilities should experience decreases 
in exposure from directly emitted pollutants. However, facilities may 
vary widely in terms of the impacts on populations they already pose to 
nearby populations. In addition, proximity to affected facilities does 
not capture variation in baseline exposure across communities, nor does 
it indicate that any exposures or impacts will occur and should not be 
interpreted as a direct measure of exposure or impact. These points 
limit the usefulness of proximity analyses when attempting to answer 
question from EPA's Environmental Justice Technical Guidance.
    Demographic proximity analyses were performed for two subsets of 
facilities affected by the supplemental rule:
    <bullet> Electricity Generating Unit (EGU): Comparison of the 
percentage of various populations (race/ethnicity, age, education, 
poverty status, income, and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered 
EGU sources to average national levels.
    <bullet> Non-EGU (non-electric generating units, or other 
stationary emissions sources): Comparison of the percentage of various 
populations (race/ethnicity, age, education, poverty status, income, 
and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered non-EGU sources to 
average national levels.
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
    The current analysis identified all census blocks with centroids 
within a 5 km, 10 km and 50 km radius of the latitude/longitude 
location of each facility, and then linked each block with census-based 
demographic data.\163\ The total population within a specific radius 
around each facility is the sum of the population for every census 
block within that specified radius, based on each block's population 
provided by the decennial Census.\164\ Statistics on race,

[[Page 12713]]

ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic 
isolation were obtained from the Census' 2015-2019 American Community 
Survey 5-year averages. These data are provided at the block group 
level. For the purposes of this analysis, the demographic 
characteristics of a given block group--that is, the percentage of 
people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age 
groups (<18, 18-64, and >64), the percentage without a high school 
diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the 
percentage that are linguistically isolated--are presumed to also 
describe each census block located within that block group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Five km and 50 km radii are the default distances 
currently used for proximity analyses. The 5 km distance is the 
shortest distance that should be chosen to avoid excessive 
demographic uncertainty and provides information on near-field 
populations. The 50 km distance offers a sub-regional perspective. 
The 10 km distance was added to this analysis as few to no people 
were within 5 km of some affected facilities.
    \164\ The location of the Census block centroid is used to 
determine if the entire population of the Census block is assumed to 
be within the specified radius. It is unknown how sensitive these 
results may be to different methods of population estimation, such 
as aerial apportionment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to facility-specific demographics, the demographic 
composition of the total population within the specified radius (e.g., 
50 km) for all facilities as a whole was also computed (e.g., all EGUs 
or all non-EGU facilities). In calculating the total populations, to 
avoid double-counting, each census block population was only counted 
once. That is, if a census block was located within the selected radius 
(i.e., 50 km) for multiple facilities, the population of that census 
block was only counted once in the total population. Finally, this 
analysis compares the demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5 
km, 10 km, and 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide 
population.
    For this action, a demographic analysis was conducted for nine EGU 
facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km, 10 km, 
and 50 km radius distances (Table VIII.A.1-1). Approximately 7 million 
people live within 50 km of these nine EGU facilities, representing 
roughly 2 percent of the 328 million total population of the U.S. 
Within 50km of EGU facilities, there is a higher Hispanic/Latino 
population than the national average (26 percent versus 19 percent) and 
a higher Native American population than the national average (1.9 
percent versus 0.7 percent). Other demographics of the population 
within 50km of the EGU facilities are similar to the national averages. 
Approximately 166 thousand and 716 thousand people live within 5 km and 
10 km of the EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of 
the population within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities are very 
similar. Within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities, there is a higher 
Hispanic/Latino population than the national average (60 percent within 
5 km and 53 percent within 10 km versus 19 percent nationwide) and a 
higher Native American population than the national average (5.5 
percent within 5 km and 3.5 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent 
nationwide). The populations within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities 
have a higher percentage of people under the age of 18 compared to the 
national average (29 percent within both 5km and 10km versus 23 percent 
nationwide). The percent of people living below the poverty level is 
higher than the national average (24 percent within 5 km and 23 percent 
within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide). The percent of people over 
the age of 25 without a high school diploma is higher than the national 
average (18 percent within 5 km and 16 percent within 10 km versus 12 
percent nationwide), and the percent of people living in linguistic 
isolation is higher than the national average (12 percent within 5 km 
and 10 percent within 10 km versus 5 percent nationwide).

Table VIII.A.1-1--Population Demographics for the Nine EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls Due
                                            to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
                                                                       national average \1\
                Demographic group                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     National
                                                       5 km            10 km           50 km          average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
    White.......................................              23              28              59              60
    African American............................               9              10               7              12
    Native American.............................             5.5             3.5             1.9             0.7
    Other and Multiracial.......................               3               5               6               8
    Hispanic or Latino \2\......................              60              53              26              19
Age:
    0-17 Years Old..............................              29              29              24              23
    18-64 Years Old.............................              61              62              61              62
    >=65 Years Old..............................               9               9              15              16
Income:
    People Living Below the Poverty Level.......              24              23              14              13
Education:
    >= 25 Years Old Without a High School                     18              16               8              12
     Diploma....................................
Language:
    People Living in Linguistic Isolation.......              12              10               5               5
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Population........................         165,712         716,296       6,742,898     328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
  block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
  on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
  for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
  analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.

2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
    For this action, a demographic analysis was also conducted for two 
non-EGU facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km, 
10 km, and 50 km radius distances (TableVIII.A.2-1). Approximately 218 
thousand people live within 50 km of these two non-EGU facilities, 
representing roughly 0.07 percent of the 328 million total population 
of the U.S. Within 50km of the two non-EGU facilities, there is a 
higher White population than the national average (72 percent versus 60 
percent), and there is a higher Native American population than the 
national average (3.8 percent

[[Page 12714]]

versus 0.7 percent). There is also a higher population over the age of 
65 than the national average (24 percent versus 16 percent). 
Approximately 200 and 3,000 people live within 5 km and 10 km of the 
non-EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of the 
population within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities are similar. 
Within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities, there is a higher White 
population than the national average (87 percent within 5km and 88 
percent within 10 km versus 60 percent nationwide) and there is a 
higher Native American population than the national average (2.2 
percent within 5 km and 1.0 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent 
nationwide). Concerning the age distribution within 5 and 10km of the 
two non-EGU facilities, the percent of people aged 65 or older is 
higher than the national average (31 percent within 5 km and 36 percent 
within 10 km versus 16 percent nationwide). Additionally, the percent 
of people living below the poverty level within 5 km and 10 km of the 
non-EGU facilities is higher than the national average (18 percent 
within 5 km and 17 percent within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide).

 Table VIII.A.2-1--Population Demographics for the Two Non-EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls
                                          Due to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
                                                                       national average \1\
                Demographic group                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     National
                                                       5 km            10 km           50 km          average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
    White.......................................              87              88              72              60
    African American............................               0               0               1              12
    Native American.............................             2.2             1.0             3.8             0.7
    Other and Multiracial.......................               4               4               5               8
    Hispanic or Latino \2\......................               7               7              19              19
Age:
    0-17 Years Old..............................               5               6              17              23
    18-64 Years Old.............................              65              58              59              62
    >=65 Years Old..............................              31              36              24              16
Income:
    People Living Below the Poverty Level.......              18              17              14              13
Education:
    >=25 Years Old Without a High School Diploma               7               8               8              12
Language:
    People Living in Linguistic Isolation:......               0               0               2               5
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Population........................             204           3,193         218,256     328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
  block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
  on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
  for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
  analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.

    For additional information on the EGU or non-EGU proximity 
analyses, see section VII.3. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as well 
as the memorandum Analysis of Demographic Factors For Populations 
Living Near EGU and Non-EGU Facilities, in the rulemaking docket.

B. Outreach

    Prior to this proposal and prior to proposal of the EPA's Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA initiated a public outreach effort to 
gather input from stakeholder groups likely to be interested in this 
action. Specifically, the EPA hosted an environmental justice webinar 
on October 26, 2021, to share information about the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan and solicit feedback about potential environmental 
justice considerations. The webinar was attended by over 180 
individuals representing State governments, federally recognized 
tribes, environmental NGOs, higher education institutions, industry, 
and the EPA.\165\ Participants were invited to comment during the 
webinar or provide written comments to a pre-regulatory docket. The 
webinar was recorded and distributed to attendees after the event. The 
key issues raised by interested parties is summarized in section 
VIII.C. of the EPA's proposed Good Neighbor Plan Rulemaking, and the 
EPA's response to these comments regarding environmental justice 
considerations are available in section 6 of the Response To Comments 
document for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.<SUP>166 167</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ This does not constitute the EPA's Tribal consultation 
under Executive Order 13175, which is described in section XI.F. of 
this document.
    \166\ 87 FR 20036 at 20153.
    \167\ ``Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Response to Public Comments 
on Proposed Rule'' at 837. Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668-1127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule

    In the EIA for this action, the EPA estimated the health and 
climate benefits, compliance costs, and emissions changes that may 
result from the proposed rule for the analysis period 2025 to 2044. The 
estimated health and climate benefits and compliance costs are 
presented in detail in the EIA. The EPA notes that for EGUs the 
estimated benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with 
fully operating existing SCRs during ozone season; fully operating 
existing SNCRs during ozone season; installing state-of-the-art 
combustion controls; imposing a backstop emissions rate on certain 
units that lack SCR controls; and installing SCR and SNCR post-
combustion controls. The EPA also notes that for non-EGUs the estimated 
health benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with 
installing controls to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions requirements

[[Page 12715]]

presented in section I.B. of this document.
    For EGUs, the EPA analyzed this action's emissions budgets using 
uniform control stringency represented by $1,800 per ton of 
NO<INF>X</INF> (2016$) in 2025 and $11,000 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> 
(2016$) in 2027. For non-EGUs, the EPA developed an analytical 
framework to determine which industries and emissions unit types to 
include in a proposed Transport FIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS transport 
obligations. A February 28, 2022, memorandum, titled ``Screening 
Assessment of Potential Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and 
Costs from Non-EGU Emissions Units for 2026,'' documents the analytical 
framework used to identify industries and emissions unit types included 
in the proposed FIP.
    Table IX-1 provides the projected 2025 through 2030, 2035, 2040, 
and 2044 EGU NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season emissions reductions for the 
proposed rule. For additional information on emissions changes, see 
Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 in the EIA.

 Table IX-1--EGU Ozone Season NOX Emissions and Emissions Changes (Tons) for the Baseline Run and Proposed Rule
                                                 From 2025-2044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Total emissions
                    Ozone season NOX  (tons)                     --------------------------------   Change from
                                                                     Baseline        Proposal      baseline run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025:
    5 States....................................................          23,701          22,243          -1,458
    Other States................................................         234,186         234,186               0
    Nationwide..................................................         257,887         256,428          -1,459
2026:
    5 States....................................................          23,701          22,243          -1,458
    Other States................................................         234,186         234,186               0
    Nationwide..................................................         257,887         256,428          -1,459
2027:
    5 States....................................................          18,270          17,012          -1,258
    Other States................................................         189,571         189,583              12
    Nationwide..................................................         207,840         206,595          -1,245
2028:
    5 States....................................................          18,270          17,012          -1,258
    Other States................................................         189,571         189,583              12
    Nationwide..................................................         207,840         206,595          -1,245
2029:
    5 States....................................................          18,270          17,012          -1,258
    Other States................................................         189,571         189,583              12
    Nationwide..................................................         207,840         206,595          -1,245
2030:
    5 States....................................................          16,184          15,427            -756
    Other States................................................         150,909         150,910               0
    Nationwide..................................................         167,093         166,337            -756
2035:
    5 States....................................................           5,967           5,453            -513
    Other States................................................          94,061          94,053              -8
    Nationwide..................................................         100,028          99,506            -521
2040:
    5 States....................................................           5,623           4,901            -722
    Other States................................................          77,971          78,010              39
    Nationwide..................................................          83,594          82,910            -683
2044:
    5 States....................................................           5,271           4,549            -722
    Other States................................................          71,506          71,506               0
    Nationwide..................................................          76,778          76,055            -722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The 5 States include Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The Other States include the
  remaining states not covered by the proposal in the contiguous United States. Nationwide is the total of the 5
  States and the Other States.

    Table IX-2 provides a summary of the ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions and costs for non-EGUs in Arizona starting in 
2028. We estimated the emissions reductions and costs for 2026 and 
assume compliance by 2028. The analysis in the EIA assumes that the 
estimated reductions in 2028 will be the same in later years.

 Table IX-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated Total
                           Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Assumed control                      Ozone season
                                                             technologies that     Annual costs      emissions
        Industry/Industries          Emissions unit type       meet proposed         (million       reductions
                                                              emissions limits        2016$)          (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural  Reciprocating          Layered Combustion (2-            4.3             329
 Gas.                                Internal Combustion    cycle Lean Burn).
                                     Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 12716]]

    For EGUs, the EPA analyzed ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
reductions and the associated costs to the power sector using IPM and 
its underlying data and inputs. For non-EGUs, the EPA prepared an 
assessment summarized in the memorandum titled Non-EGU Applicability 
Requirements and Estimated Emissions Reductions and Costs_Proposed 
Supplemental, and the memorandum includes estimated emissions 
reductions for the proposed rule.
    Table IX-3 reflects the estimates of emissions reductions and the 
changes in the cost of supplying electricity for the proposed rule for 
EGUs and estimates of complying with the emissions requirements for 
non-EGUs. The costs presented in Table IX-3 do not include monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting costs.

            Table IX-3--Total Annual Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions (Ozone Season, Tons) and Compliance Costs (Million 2016$), 2025-2044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Emissions reductions  (ozone season, tons)           Compliance costs  (million 2016$)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               EGUs          Non-EGUs          Total           EGUs          Non-EGUs          Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025....................................................           1,459  ..............           1,459            $1.0  ..............            $1.0
2026....................................................           1,459  ..............           1,459             1.0  ..............             1.0
2027....................................................           1,245  ..............           1,245             3.4  ..............             3.4
2028....................................................           1,245             329           1,574             3.4            $4.3             7.7
2029....................................................           1,245             329           1,574             3.4             4.3             7.7
2030....................................................             756             329           1,085             0.7             4.3             5.0
2035....................................................             513             329             842             0.7             4.3             5.0
2040....................................................             683             329           1,012             0.3             4.3             4.6
2044....................................................             722             329           1,051             0.7             4.3             4.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposed supplemental rule, the EPA monetizes the health 
benefits of avoided ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF>-attributable premature 
deaths and illnesses by multiplying a benefit per ton coefficient by 
the expected State NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season and primary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
reductions. The benefit per ton calculations for EGUs and non-EGUs have 
been combined in Table IX-4.

 Table IX-4--Estimated Monetized Health Benefits of Avoided Ozone and PM2.5-Attributable Premature Mortality and Illness for the Proposed Rule Emissions
   Reductions (EGUs and Non-EGUs), 2025-2044: Monetized Benefits Quantified as Sum of Avoided Morbidity Health Effects and Avoided Long-Term Ozone and
                                                                     PM2.5 Mortality
                                                      [3 Percent discount rate; million 2016$] a b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                                 Ozone                                  PM2.5                              Combined total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025...............................  $16 and $110.........................  $32 and $69..........................  $48 and $180.
2026...............................  $16 and $110.........................  $32 and $69..........................  $48 and $180.
2027...............................  $14 and $96..........................  $4.7 and $9.9........................  $19 and $110.
2028...............................  $18 and $140.........................  $8.3 and $17.........................  $26 and $160.
2029...............................  $18 and $140.........................  $8.3 and $17.........................  $26 and $160.
2030...............................  $13 and $99..........................  $5.4 and $11.........................  $18 and $110.
2031...............................  $13 and $99..........................  $5.4 and $11.........................  $18 and $110.
2032...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2033...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2034...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2035...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2036...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2037...............................  $12 and $95..........................  $4.9 and $9.8........................  $17 and $100.
2038...............................  $14 and $120.........................  $4.8 and $9.5........................  $19 and $130.
2039...............................  $14 and $120.........................  $4.8 and $9.5........................  $19 and $130.
2040...............................  $14 and $120.........................  $4.8 and $9.5........................  $19 and $130.
2041...............................  $14 and $120.........................  $4.8 and $9.5........................  $19 and $130.
2042...............................  $14 and $120.........................  $4.8 and $9.5........................  $19 and $130.
2043...............................  $15 and $130.........................  $6 and $12...........................  $21 and $140.
2044...............................  $15 and $130.........................  $6 and $12...........................  $21 and $140.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Values rounded to two significant figures.
b The benefits are associated with two point estimates from two different epidemiologic studies. The lower estimates includes ozone mortality estimated
  using the pooled Katsouyanni et al. (2009), the Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) short-term risk estimates, and the Wu et al. (2020) long-term PM2.5
  exposure mortality risk estimate. The higher estimates includes ozone mortality estimated using the Turner et al. (2016) long-term risk estimate and
  the Pope et al. (2019) long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk estimate. Health benefits are discounted at a rate of 3 and 7 percent over the SAB-
  recommended 20-year segmented lag. Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.

    Table IX-5 shows the estimated monetary value of the estimated 
changes in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs expected to occur over 
2025-2044 for this proposed rule. The EPA estimated the dollar value of 
the CO<INF>2</INF>-related effects

[[Page 12717]]

for each year between 2025 and 2044 by applying the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
estimates to the estimated changes in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the 
corresponding year.

               Table IX-5--Stream of Climate Benefits From EGU CO2 Emissions Reductions, 2025-2044
                                               [Millions of 2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Discount rate and statistic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      3% 95th
                      Year                          5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................            $0.6            $2.1            $3.0            $6.2
2026............................................             0.6             2.1             3.1             6.3
2027............................................             0.5             1.5             2.2             4.6
2028............................................             0.5             1.5             2.3             4.7
2029............................................             0.5             1.6             2.3             4.8
2030............................................             0.5             1.7             2.5             5.2
2031............................................             0.6             1.8             2.5             5.3
2032............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2033............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2034............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2035............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2036............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2037............................................             0.0            -0.1            -0.2            -0.4
2038............................................            -0.1            -0.3            -0.4            -0.8
2039............................................            -0.1            -0.3            -0.4            -0.8
2040............................................            -0.1            -0.3            -0.4            -0.8
2041............................................            -0.1            -0.3            -0.4            -0.8
2042............................................            -0.1            -0.3            -0.4            -0.8
2043............................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
2044............................................             0.0             0.0             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.

    The EPA calculates the monetized net benefits of the proposed rule 
by subtracting the estimated monetized compliance costs from the 
estimated monetized health and climate benefits. The benefits include 
those to public health associated with reductions ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, as well as those to climate associated 
with reductions in GHG emissions. The EPA presents estimates of the PV 
of the monetized benefits and costs over the 20-year period 2025 to 
2044. To calculate the PV of the social net-benefits of the proposed 
rule, annual benefits and costs are discounted to 2023 at 3 percent and 
7 discount rates as recommended by OMB's Circular A-4. The EPA also 
presents the EAV, which represents a flow of constant annual values 
that, had they occurred in each year from 2025 to 2044, would yield a 
sum equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical 
cost or benefit for each year of the analysis. Table IX-6 provides the 
comparison of benefits and costs in PV and EAV terms for the proposed 
rule. Estimates in the table are presented as rounded values. For the 
20-year period of 2025 to 2044, the PV of the net benefits, in 2016$ 
and discounted to 2023, is $270 and $1,800 million when using a 3 
percent discount rate and $180 and $1,100 million when using a 7 
percent discount rate. The EAV is $18 and $120 million per year when 
using a 3 percent discount rate and $17 and $110 million when using a 7 
percent discount rate.

  Table IX-6--Summary of Present Values and Equivalent Annualized Values for the 2025-2044 Timeframe for Estimated Monetized Compliance Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule
                                                                            [Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Health benefits                          Climate          Cost c                                 Net benefits
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------  benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  -----------
                                                  3%                              7%                   3%         3%         7%                   3%                             7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025..............................  $45 and $170..................  $38 and $140.................       $1.9       $1.0       $0.9  $46 and $170.................  $39 and $140.
2026..............................  $44 and $160..................  $35 and $130.................        1.9        1.0        0.9  $45 and $160.................  $36 and $130.
2027..............................  $17 and $94...................  $12 and $72..................        1.4        3.0        2.6  $15 and $92..................  $11 and $71.
2028..............................  $23 and $140..................  $17 and $100.................        1.3        6.6        5.5  $17 and $130.................  $13 and $99.
2029..............................  $22 and $130..................  $16 and $97..................        1.3        6.4        5.1  $17 and $130.................  $12 and $93.
2030..............................  $15 and $89...................  $9.9 and $62.................        1.4        4.1        3.1  $12 and $87..................  $8.2 and $60.
2031..............................  $15 and $87...................  $9.3 and $58.................        1.4        3.9        2.9  $12 and $84..................  $7.7 and $56.
2032..............................  $13 and $80...................  $7.8 and $51.................       -0.1        3.8        2.7  $9.0 and $76.................  $5.0 and $48.
2033..............................  $13 and $78...................  $7.3 and $47.................       -0.1        3.7        2.5  $8.8 and $74.................  $4.7 and $45.
2034..............................  $12 and $76...................  $6.8 and $44.................       -0.1        3.6        2.4  $8.5 and $72.................  $4.4 and $42.
2035..............................  $12 and $74...................  $6.4 and $41.................       -0.1        3.5        2.2  $8.2 and $70.................  $4.1 and $39.
2036..............................  $12 and $71...................  $6.0 and $39.................       -0.1        3.4        2.1  $8.0 and $68.................  $3.8 and $360.
2037..............................  $11 and $69...................  $5.6 and $36.................       -0.1        3.3        1.9  $7.8 and $66.................  $3.6 and $34.
2038..............................  $12 and $83...................  $6.3 and $43.................       -0.2        2.9        1.7  $9.0 and $80.................  $4.4 and $41.
2039..............................  $12 and $81...................  $5.9 and $40.................       -0.2        2.8        1.5  $8.7 and $78.................  $4.1 and $38.
2040..............................  $11 and $78...................  $5.5 and $38.................       -0.2        2.8        1.4  $8.4 and $75.................  $3.9 and $36.
2041..............................  $11 and $76...................  $5.1 and $35.................       -0.2        2.7        1.4  $8.2 and $73.................  $3.6 and $34.
2042..............................  $11 and $74...................  $4.8 and $33.................       -0.2        2.6        1.3  $8.0 and $71.................  $3.4 and $31.

[[Page 12718]]

 
2043..............................  $12 and $79...................  $4.8 and $31.................        0.0        2.8        1.3  $8.9 and $76.................  $3.5 and $30.
2044..............................  $11 and $76...................  $4.4 and $29.................        0.0        2.7        1.2  $8.6 and $74.................  $3.2 and $28.
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PV 2025-2044..................  $330 and $1,900...............  $210 and $1,200..............        9.3         67         45  $270 and $1,800..............  $180 and $1,100.
    EAV 2025-2044.................  $22 and $130..................  $20 and $110.................        0.6        4.5        4.2  $18 and $120.................  $17 and $110.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.

X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text

    This section describes proposed amendments to the regulatory text 
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to apply the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in Arizona, Iowa, 
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The proposed CFR amendments relating 
to EGUs and to non-EGUs are addressed in section X.A. and section X.B. 
of this document, respectively. In section X.C. of this document, the 
EPA describes additional proposed CFR amendments that would make 
technical corrections or clarifications to the regulatory text as 
finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has included 
documents showing the proposed amendments in redline-strikeout format 
in the docket for this proposed action.

A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to 
EGUs in Additional States

    The primary CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plans requirements to EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee would be made in the FIP provisions addressing 
states' good neighbor obligations related to ozone in 40 CFR part 52 as 
well as in the regulations for the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 Trading Program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG. In addition, 
amendments to address the transition of the EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and 
Tennessee from the Group 2 trading program to the Group 3 trading 
program would be made in the regulations for the Group 2 trading 
program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE, and conforming revisions 
would be made in the regulations for the Group 1 trading program in 40 
CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB.
    The FIP provisions that identify the states whose EGU sources must 
participate in the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1, Group 2, 
and Group 3 trading programs with respect to specified control periods 
to address transported ozone pollution are set forth at Sec.  
52.38(b)(2). The proposed expansion of the applicability of the Group 3 
trading program to sources in the five newly added states starting with 
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec.  
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E). The proposed end to the applicability of the Group 
2 trading program (with the exception of certain provisions) for 
sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee after the 2024 control period 
would be implemented at Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A).
    In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA retained several 
previously established options for states to revise their SIPs to 
modify or replace the FIPs applicable to their sources while continuing 
to use the Group 3 trading program as the mechanism for meeting the 
states' good neighbor obligations. Under this proposal, the provision 
at Sec.  52.38(b)(10) establishing an option for a State to replace 
allowance allocations for a single control period would be amended to 
make the option available for the five newly added states for the 2026 
control period,\168\ with coordinated revisions to the Group 3 trading 
program regulations as discussed later in this section X.A. The 
provisions at Sec.  52.38(b)(11) and (12) establishing options for a 
State to adopt an abbreviated or full SIP revision starting with the 
2025 control period would remain available to states already covered by 
the Group 3 trading program and would be amended to make the options 
available to the newly added states starting with the 2027 control 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ The provision as it exists before the proposed amendments 
is obsolete because no State elected to use the provision to 
establish state-determined allocations for the 2024 control period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general FIP provisions applicable to all states covered by this 
rule as set forth in Sec.  52.38(b)(2) would be replicated in the 
state-specific subparts of 40 CFR part 52 for each of the five states 
that the EPA is proposing to add to the Group 3 trading program.\169\ 
In each such state-specific CFR subpart, provisions would be added 
indicating that sources in the State would be required to participate 
in the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program with 
respect to emissions starting in 2025. Provisions would also be added 
repeating the substance of Sec.  52.38(b)(13)(i), which provides that 
the Administrator's full and unconditional approval of a full SIP 
revision correcting the same SIP deficiency that is the basis for a FIP 
promulgated in this rulemaking would cause the FIP to no longer apply 
to sources subject to the State's CAA implementation planning 
authority, and Sec.  52.38(b)(14)(ii), which provides the EPA with 
authority to complete recordation of EPA-determined allowance 
allocations for any control period for which the EPA has already 
started such recordation notwithstanding the approval of a State's SIP 
revision establishing state-determined allowance allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  52.154(a) (Arizona), 52.840(b) 
(Iowa), 52.882(b) (Kansas), 52.1641 (New Mexico), and 52.2240(e) 
(Tennessee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the three states that the EPA is proposing to remove 
from the Group 2 trading program, the provisions of the state-specific 
CFR subparts indicating that sources in the State are required to 
participate in that trading program would be revised to end that 
requirement with respect to emissions after 2024, and a further 
provision would be added repeating the substance of Sec.  
52.38(b)(14)(iii), which identifies certain provisions that continue to 
apply to sources and allowances notwithstanding discontinuation of a 
trading program with respect to a particular state. In addition, 
obsolete text concerning the unexercised option to adopt full SIP 
revisions to replace the FIPs issued under the CSAPR Update would be 
removed.
    To implement the geographic expansion of the Group 3 trading 
program and the trading budgets

[[Page 12719]]

proposed under the new and amended FIPs in this rulemaking, several 
sections of the Group 3 trading program regulations would be amended. 
Revisions identifying the applicable control periods, the starting 
years for certain allocation provisions, the deadlines for 
certification of monitoring systems, and the deadlines for commencement 
of quarterly reporting for sources in the newly added states would be 
made at Sec. Sec.  97.1006(c)(3), 97.1012, 97.1030(b)(1), and 
97.1034(d)(2)(i), respectively. Revisions identifying the new or 
revised budgets, new unit set-aside percentages, and variability limits 
under the Group 3 trading program for the control periods starting in 
2025 for the newly added states would be made at Sec.  97.1010, while 
revisions ending the corresponding provisions under the Group 2 trading 
program for control periods after 2024 would be made at Sec.  97.810. 
Revisions to Sec.  97.1021 would establish the schedule for recording 
unit-level allocations of allowances to sources in the newly added 
states for the 2025 and 2026 control periods, including the schedule 
that would apply with respect to allocations for the 2026 control 
period if a State exercises the proposed option to establish state-
determined allocations for that control period.
    The proposed creation of an additional Group 3 allowance bank for 
the 2025 control period through the conversion of banked 2017-2024 
Group 2 allowances as discussed in section VII.A.5. of this document 
would be implemented at a new Sec.  97.826(f)(1).\170\ Related 
provisions addressing the use of Group 3 allowances to satisfy 
compliance obligations under the Group 1 trading program or the Group 2 
trading program arising after the conversion would be implemented at 
new Sec. Sec.  97.526(e)(4) and 97.826(g)(3), respectively. Related 
provisions addressing delayed recordation of allocations of Group 1 or 
Group 2 allowances after the conversion would be implemented at new 
Sec. Sec.  97.526(d)(2)(iv) and 97.826(f)(2), respectively. A 
coordinating amendment that excludes the emissions budgets of the newly 
added states from the Group 3 allowance bank recalibration target for 
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec.  97.1026(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ The provision currently designated as Sec.  97.826(f) 
would be redesignated as Sec.  97.826(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA proposes to make conforming revisions to cross-
references necessitated by the other amendments already described at 
Sec.  52.38(b)(14) and in several sections of the regulations for the 
Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 trading programs.

B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to 
Non-EGUs in Additional States

    The CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plans 
requirements to non-EGUs in Arizona would be made in the FIP provisions 
for non-EGUs promulgated in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in 40 CFR 
52.40 through 52.46. A proposed amendment to Sec.  52.40(c)(2) would 
extend applicability of the non-EGU requirements under all seven of 
these CFR sections to Arizona emissions sources starting with the 2027 
control period. This provision would be substantively replicated in the 
state-specific subpart of 40 CFR part 52 for Arizona at proposed Sec.  
52.154(b).
    In addition, each provision in Sec. Sec.  52.40 through 52.46 that 
either repeats the general applicability deadline from Sec.  
52.40(c)(2) or that establishes a deadline for a specific requirement 
or option would be revised to clearly indicate the applicable deadline 
for sources in Arizona as well as the applicable deadline for sources 
in states already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's 
requirements. In most cases, the EPA is proposing to establish the 
deadlines for Arizona sources 1 year after the comparable deadlines for 
sources in the other states. However, in cases where the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan established a deadline in terms of a certain interval 
after the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's effective date, the EPA is 
proposing to similarly establish a comparable deadline for Arizona 
sources in terms of the same interval after the effective date of a 
final rule in this rulemaking.

C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously Finalized 
Regulatory Text

    In addition to the amendments described in sections X.A. and X.B. 
for this document to implement the proposed extension of the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in additional 
states, the EPA is also proposing to make various technical corrections 
and clarifications to the previously finalized regulatory text. Most of 
the revisions would replace incorrect cross-references, improve grammar 
and clarity, or fix typographical errors. These corrections are not 
individually described in this preamble but are shown in the documents 
included in the docket for this rulemaking, which show all proposed 
changes to the regulatory text in redline-strikeout format.
    Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and 
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional 
technical corrections to the regulatory text for EGUs:
    <bullet> The backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate 
provisions at Sec. Sec.  97.1006(c)(1)(i)(B) and 97.1024(b)(1)(ii) 
would be revised to clarify that the 50-ton threshold that must be 
crossed before cumulative exceedances of the backstop daily rate 
require surrender of extra allowances applies individually to each unit 
subject to the backstop rate provisions, as discussed in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36791-93, and not to all the units 
at a source on a collective basis.
    <bullet> The backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate 
provisions at Sec.  97.1024(b)(3) would be revised to avoid 
inadvertently applying the backstop emissions rate provisions in 
control periods after 2029 to units without installed SCR controls in 
states where the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's identified emissions 
control stringency does not include the installation of new SCR 
controls.
    <bullet> The ``maximum controlled baseline'' language in the 
allowance allocation provisions at Sec. Sec.  97.1011(b)(4)(ii) and 
97.1012(a)(4)(ii) would be revised to avoid inadvertently applying SCR-
based assumptions in the calculations of allowance allocations to units 
without installed SCR controls in states where the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan's identified emissions control stringency does not 
include the installation of new SCR controls.
    <bullet> The secondary emissions limitation provisions at Sec.  
97.1025(c)(1) would be revised to clarify that the provisions do not 
apply before the 2024 control period, as stated in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36798 and consistent with the 
provisions for the timing of compliance requirements at Sec.  
97.1006(c)(3)(ii).
    <bullet> The provisions to create an initial allowance bank for 
states transitioning to the Group 3 trading program under the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan at Sec.  97.826(e)(1)(ii)(B) would be revised to 
clarify that the initial bank target used to determine the conversion 
factor is calculated as 21 percent of the sum of the 2024 trading 
budgets under Sec.  97.1010(a)(1)(i) for the relevant states, not as 
the potentially different sum of the final 2024 variability limits 
under Sec.  97.1010(e) for the relevant states, because the final 2024 
variability limit values under Sec.  97.1010(e) would not be known 
until after the deadline for

[[Page 12720]]

carrying out the bank conversion procedure.
    <bullet> The provision at Sec.  52.38(b)(14)(iii)(A) that clarifies 
the continued applicability of the EPA's allowance housekeeping 
authority after the sources in a State no longer participate in a given 
trading program would be revised to include Group 3 allowances, in 
light of the interim transition of sources in several states out of the 
Group 3 trading program in response to judicial stay orders.
    Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and 
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional 
technical corrections to the regulatory text for non-EGUs:
    <bullet> The definition of ``ozone season'' currently provided as 
part of the general requirements of the non-EGU regulations at Sec.  
52.40(c)(1) would be broken out as a freestanding definition and 
relocated to Sec.  52.40(b). The revision would clarify the 
regulations.
    <bullet> The recordkeeping provisions at Sec. Sec.  52.41(f), 
52.42(e), 52.43(f), 52.44(h)(1) through (3), 52.45(e)(1), and 52.46(f) 
would be revised by adding language to the introductory text stating 
that the recordkeeping requirements apply only with respect to 
operations during the ozone season (unless stated otherwise), 
consistent with the existing regulations in the general recordkeeping 
requirements at Sec.  52.40(c)(3). The revisions would also add cross-
references to the general recordkeeping requirements at Sec.  
52.40(c)(3) and (f), where additional details on recordkeeping 
requirements are provided. Relatedly, the recordkeeping provisions at 
Sec.  52.45(e)(2) for low-use industrial boilers would be revised to 
correctly cross-reference Sec.  52.40(f) (but not Sec.  52.40(c)(3)) 
and to include language stating that the recordkeeping requirements of 
that provision apply with respect to operations throughout the calendar 
year, consistent with the qualification criteria for the low-use 
exemption. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
    <bullet> Two types of corrections would be made to the reporting 
provisions at Sec. Sec.  52.40(g), 52.41(g), 52.42(f), 52.43(g), 
52.44(i), 52.45(f), and 52.46(g). First, a statement would be added to 
Sec.  52.40(g) clarifying that requirements to use the EPA's Compliance 
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an analogous 
electronic submission system provided by the EPA apply with respect to 
not only annual reports but also excess emissions reports, consistent 
with similar statements already included in the industry-specific 
reporting provisions. Second, the industry-specific reporting 
provisions for excess emissions reports and annual reports would be 
revised to remove a statement that the reports are required to be 
submitted in pdf format, which is not correct in all situations, and to 
add a statement indicating that the appropriate submission instructions 
for reports submitted via CEDRI will be provided in CEDRI. In 
conjunction with the additional cross-reference corrections that the 
EPA is proposing to make in this rulemaking (as discussed at the 
beginning of this section X.C.), each of the industry-specific 
reporting provisions would include a correct cross-reference to the 
general reporting provisions Sec.  52.40(g), where information on the 
report format requirements for various situations is set forth in 
greater detail. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
    <bullet> Several provisions concerning non-report submissions--that 
is, optional or required submissions other than required excess 
emissions reports and annual reports--would be revised to indicate that 
sources must make the submissions to the EPA via CEDRI or an analogous 
electronic submission system provided by the EPA. First, provisions at 
Sec. Sec.  52.40(e)(1), 52.41(b)(1)(ii), 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B), and 
52.45(d)(2)(vii) which do not currently reflect the EPA's intent for 
all submissions to be made electronically would be revised to require 
use of the appropriate standard electronic submission mechanisms. 
Second, a provision at Sec.  52.43(d)(1) which currently identifies the 
standard electronic submission mechanisms for reports would be revised 
to identify the standard electronic submission mechanisms for non-
report submissions. Finally, the provision currently designated as 
Sec.  52.45(d)(4) \171\ which currently identifies only CEDRI would be 
revised to also include the standard reference to an analogous 
electronic submission system. The revisions would make these provisions 
consistent with the other provisions governing non-report submissions 
throughout the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU regulations and 
would clarify the regulations. See Sec. Sec.  52.40(d)(4), (d)(9)(ii), 
and (e)(7)(ii); 52.41(d); 52.42(g)(2); 52.43(d)(1), (g)(1), and (h)(2); 
and 52.44(d)(1), (e)(1), and (j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate this provision as 
Sec.  52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> In the regulations governing compliance extension requests 
at Sec.  52.40(d), the regulations governing case-by-case emissions 
limit requests at Sec.  52.40(e), and the regulations governing steel 
reheat furnace work plan submissions at Sec.  52.43(d)(4), multiple 
revisions would be made to the provisions concerning notifications from 
the EPA to sources. First, each of the provisions specifically 
identifying CEDRI as a mechanism for electronic notifications from the 
EPA would be revised to instead provide for the EPA's notifications to 
be made more generally ``in writing or via an electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA,'' because CEDRI is not currently capable of 
serving this purpose. Second, a provision at Sec.  52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B) 
that does not currently identify any electronic notification mechanism 
would be revised to include the same general reference to ``an 
electronic submission system provided by the EPA'' as the other 
notification provisions. Third, current phrases in Sec. Sec.  
52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6) and 52.43(d)(4)(ii) calling for the 
notifications to be made publicly available would be removed as overly 
broad, because some of the notifications made under those paragraphs do 
not concern final Agency decisions but instead concern non-final 
expressions of intent which the Agency did not mean to include within 
the scope of the public availability requirements. Finally, the 
revisions would add a new sentence to Sec.  52.43(d)(4)(ii) that 
requires the relevant final decisions under that paragraph to be made 
publicly available but does not require any non-final expressions of 
intent to be made publicly available. See also Sec.  52.43(d)(4)(iv) 
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly 
available). In the case of Sec.  52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6), the removed 
phrases about public availability requirements would not be replaced 
because other related provisions already require the relevant final 
decisions under those paragraphs to be made publicly available. See 
Sec.  52.40(d)(6) and (e)(4); see also Sec.  52.40(d)(10) and (e)(8) 
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly 
available). The revisions would clarify the regulations.
    <bullet> The definition of ``facility'' in the regulations for 
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec.  52.41(a) would be revised to 
refer to ``the set of states'' instead of ``the 20 states'' covered by 
the non-EGU regulations. The revision would clarify the regulations and 
maintain the intent of the current definition as finalized in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, which was to ensure that any facility-wide 
averaging plans do not extend beyond the geographic area covered by the 
regulations. See 88 FR 36824.
    <bullet> The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for 
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec.  52.43(e) would be revised to 
correctly indicate the terms of

[[Page 12721]]

the partial exemption created for certain engines in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan. As discussed in the rulemaking record, the EPA 
determined that it is appropriate to exempt engines that operate 
primarily during peak hours outside the ozone season and that operate 
for 50 hours or less during the ozone season from most of the testing 
and monitoring requirements applicable to other engines, with the 
exception of the requirement for an initial performance test. See EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1127, Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Response to Public 
Comments on Proposed Rule, at 657. As revised, the provision at Sec.  
52.43(e)(6) would correctly specify which testing and monitoring 
requirements are covered by the exemption and would state the correct 
ozone season operating hour ceiling of 50 hours. Also, the largely 
duplicative provision currently at Sec.  52.43(e)(3)(iii) would be 
removed and the provision currently designated as Sec.  52.43(e)(3)(iv) 
would be redesignated as Sec.  52.43(e)(3)(iii). The revisions would 
bring the regulations into agreement with the EPA's intent as discussed 
in the rulemaking record and improve clarity.
    <bullet> The definitions section of the regulations for cement 
kilns at Sec.  52.42(a) would be revised by removing a definition of 
``cement plant'' because the term is not used in the final regulations.
    <bullet> The applicability provisions of the regulations covering 
steel reheat furnaces at Sec.  52.43(b) would be revised to eliminate 
the possibility of an incorrect inference that a unit previously 
affected under the regulations might no longer be affected after 
installation of low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners. The EPA's intent for the 
regulations to remain in effect for a given affected unit after any 
installation of low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners is clear from the overall 
structure of the regulations, including the requirements for work plans 
to set emissions limits achieving a minimum 40 percent reduction from 
baseline emissions levels for affected units based on the installation 
of low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners or alternative low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
technologies and the requirements for testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure compliance with those limits 
following installation. See Sec.  52.43(d) through (g). There is also 
no mention anywhere in the regulations or in the preamble of the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan of any possibility that a unit's status 
could change from affected to non-affected following the installation 
of low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners. The revision would clarify the 
regulations.
    <bullet> The initial notification provisions of the regulations 
covering steel reheat furnaces at Sec.  52.43(h)(2) would be revised to 
add a phrase stating that the initial notification requirement does not 
apply to sources that already have low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners 
installed. The revision would clarify the regulations by making the 
description of affected units in this paragraph consistent with the 
applicability criteria set forth in Sec.  52.43(b).
    <bullet> The emissions limitations provisions for glass 
manufacturing furnaces at Sec.  52.44(c) would be revised to clarify 
how and when the exemptions during startup, shutdown and idling apply. 
As currently written, the provision could be interpreted as allowing an 
all-or-none package of shutdown and idling exemptions for the 2026 
ozone season, if the regulations' shutdown and idling requirements are 
all met, and a broader all-or-none package of startup, shutdown, and 
idling exemptions for subsequent ozone seasons, if the regulations' 
startup, shutdown, and idling requirements are all met. The revised 
language would clarify that the exemptions during startup, shutdown, 
and idling are each available independently of the other exemptions if 
the appropriate requirements are met, and that this is the case for all 
ozone seasons. The EPA's intent for the startup, shutdown, and idling 
exemptions to be independent of one another is evident from the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan preamble. See, e.g., 88 FR 36831 (``The emissions 
limits for glass melting furnaces in Sec.  52.44(c) do not apply during 
periods of start-up, shutdown, and/or idling at affected units that 
comply instead with the alternative requirements for start-up, 
shutdown, and/or idling periods specified in Sec.  52.44(d), (e), and/
or (f), respectively.'' (emphasis added)). Moreover, the preamble 
contains no discussion indicating any intent for the exemptions to 
apply differently in the 2026 ozone season than in subsequent ozone 
seasons. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
    <bullet> In the recordkeeping provisions for glass manufacturing 
furnaces at Sec.  52.44(h), a provision concerning operating parameters 
would be redesignated from Sec.  52.44(h)(1)(vii)(D) to Sec.  
52.44(h)(1)(viii) to correctly indicate that the provision's 
application is not limited to situations where continuous emissions 
monitoring systems (CEMS) are being used, and the succeeding 
subparagraphs of Sec.  52.44(h)(1) would be renumbered accordingly. The 
correction is needed because the affected units are required to use the 
operating parameters for monitoring purposes only when CEMS are not 
being used. See Sec.  52.44(g)(2) and (3).
    <bullet> The provisions of the industrial boiler testing and 
monitoring requirements at Sec.  52.45(d)(2)(vii) concerning requests 
for alternative monitoring requirements would be revised to explicitly 
require that if such a request is approved, the facility must request 
that the relevant permitting Agency incorporate the approved monitoring 
procedure into the facility's title V permit. The revision would ensure 
consistency with other provisions of the non-EGU regulations that call 
for facility-specific requirements to be incorporated into the 
facility's title V permits. See Sec. Sec.  52.40(d)(5) and (e)(3) and 
52.45(d)(4).\172\ The revision would also carry out the Agency's 
broader intent expressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 
facilities' applicable requirements to be incorporated into their title 
V permits. See 88 FR 36844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate Sec.  52.45(d)(4) as 
Sec.  52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> The provisions concerning the required annual reports for 
industrial boilers at Sec.  52.45(f) would be revised to identify the 
required contents of the reports, which would be the records required 
under the applicable recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  52.45(e), 
including records of CEMS data or operating parameters required under 
Sec.  52.45(d). The required contents of the annual reports for 
industrial boilers would be fully consistent with the required contents 
of the annual reports for the other types of non-EGU sources covered by 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. See Sec. Sec.  52.41(g)(3), 
52.42(f)(3), 52.43(g)(4), 52.44(i)(3), and 52.46(g)(2). The revision 
would clarify the regulations by filling an obviously unintended gap, 
because the regulations currently set forth a requirement for 
submission of annual reports but lack any description of what the 
required reports should contain. In addition, because the required 
contents of the annual reports would include the CEMS-related data that 
are currently identified as the contents of a separate reporting 
requirement in Sec.  52.45(f)(3), that separate reporting requirement 
would be eliminated as redundant, and the annual report provision would 
be redesignated as Sec.  52.45(f)(3).
    <bullet> The definitions section of the municipal waste combustor 
regulations at Sec.  52.46(a) would be revised to include a definition 
of ``municipal solid waste'' matching the definition of the same

[[Page 12722]]

term in the standards of performance for new large municipal waste 
combustors at 40 CFR 60.51b. The portions of the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan preamble discussing the requirements for municipal waste 
combustors contain no discussion of any intention to introduce a 
definition of municipal solid waste for these regulations differing 
from the definition included in the EPA's other regulations for large 
municipal waste combustors. See 88 FR 36836-38. Addition of the 
definition would clarify the regulations. Also, definitions in Sec.  
52.46(a) for ``mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor'', ``mass 
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass burn 
waterwall municipal waste combustor'' would be removed because the 
terms are not used in the final regulation.
    <bullet> Several provisions of the regulations for municipal waste 
combustors at Sec.  52.46 would be revised to better implement the 
EPA's intent concerning the treatment of emissions during periods of 
startup and shutdown. As indicated in the Final Good Neighbor Plan 
preamble at 88 FR 36837, the EPA intended to address startup and 
shutdown emissions following an approach previously adopted in the 
standards of performance for commercial and industrial solid waste 
incineration (CISWI) units at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD. 
Under this approach, a single set of emissions limits applies at all 
times and the calculations of average emissions rates used to determine 
compliance with the stated emissions limits use the data measured in 
all operating hours, including periods of startup and shutdown, but 
unlike the emissions data measured at other times, the emissions data 
measured during periods of startup and shutdown are not required to be 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.2145(j)(2)(i) and 
(u)(1); 60.2165(n)(4) and (7); 60.2710(j)(2)(i) and (u)(1); and 
60.2730(n)(4) and (7). To implement this intended approach in Sec.  
52.46, paragraphs (c) and (e)(2)(vi) would be revised to clarify that a 
single set of 24-hour block average emission limits and 30-day rolling 
average emissions limits applies at all times, subject to differences 
in oxygen correction requirements for emissions data measured in 
periods of startup and shutdown, while paragraphs (d) and (e)(3) would 
be revised to remove separate emissions limits and monitoring 
requirements applicable only to periods of startup and shutdown. The 
revised regulations would implement the EPA's expressed intent 
concerning the treatment of emissions during startup and shutdown more 
accurately than the existing regulations.
    <bullet> The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for 
municipal waste combustors at Sec.  52.46(e)(vi) would be revised to 
clarify that where a source selects carbon dioxide for use in diluent 
corrections, the procedures used to determine the relationship between 
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels would be the procedures set forth for 
the same purpose in the standards of performance for new large 
municipal waste combustors at 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6). This revision would 
correct an unintended omission and is consistent with the EPA's similar 
incorporation of aspects of those standards of performance in other 
provisions of the testing and monitoring requirements for municipal 
waste combustors at Sec.  52.46(e)(2)(ii) and (3)(i).
    <bullet> The reporting provisions for municipal waste combustors at 
Sec.  52.46(g) would be revised to add a provision for excess emissions 
reports parallel to the excess emissions report provisions for each of 
the other non-EGU source categories. The EPA expressly indicated the 
intent to require excess emissions reports from all non-EGU source 
categories, including municipal waste combustors, in the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan preamble. See 88 FR 36820. The revision would correct an 
inadvertent omission and clarify the regulations.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. 
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any 
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is 
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the 
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis, 
``Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal 
``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' is briefly summarized in section IX of 
this document and is also available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2792.01. The EPA has placed a copy of the ICR 
in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA is proposing an ICR, related specifically to EGUs, for this 
proposal. The proposed rule would amend the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 trading program addressing seasonal NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in various states. Under the proposed amendments, all EGU 
sources located in states covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and 
unaffected by stay orders would remain in the Group 3 trading program. 
Additionally, EGU sources in three states (Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee) 
currently covered by the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
Trading Program would transition from the Group 2 program to the 
revised Group 3 trading program beginning with the 2025 ozone season. 
Further, sources in Arizona and New Mexico not currently covered by any 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> ozone season trading program would join the 
revised Group 3 trading program. In total, EGU sources in 15 states 
would now be covered by the Group 3 program.
    There is an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0667), that 
includes information collection requirements placed on EGU sources for 
the six Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs 
addressing sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) emissions, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, or seasonal NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 
various sets of states, and the Texas SO<INF>2</INF> trading program 
which is modeled after CSAPR. Additionally, the EPA submitted an EGU 
ICR under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (OMB Control Number 2060-
0745). The ICR in this proposal accounts for the additional respondent 
burden related to the addition sources in the five states to the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Group 3 trading program.
    The principal information collection requirements under the CSAPR 
and Texas trading programs relate to the monitoring and reporting of 
emissions and associated data in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Other 
information collection requirements under the programs concern the 
submittal of

[[Page 12723]]

information necessary to allocate and transfer emissions allowances and 
the submittal of certificates of representation and other typically 
one-time registration forms.
    Affected sources under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are 
generally stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines 
serving generators larger than 25 MW producing electricity for sale. 
Most of these affected sources are also subject to the Acid Rain 
Program (ARP). The information collection requirements under the CSAPR 
and Texas trading programs and the ARP substantially overlap and are 
fully integrated. The burden and costs of overlapping requirements are 
accounted for in the ARP ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0258). Thus, this 
ICR accounts for information collection burden and costs under the 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 trading program that are 
incremental to the burden and costs already accounted for in both the 
ARP and CSAPR ICRs.
    For most sources already reporting data under the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 or CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Group 
2 trading programs, there would be no incremental burden or cost, as 
reporting requirements will remain identical. Certain sources with a 
common stack configuration and/or those that are large, coal-fired 
EGUs, will be subject to additional emissions reporting requirements 
under the proposed rule. These sources will need to make a one-time 
monitoring plan and Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) update 
to meet the additional reporting requirements. There is some 
incremental cost and burden for those sources in the two states not 
currently reporting data under a CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
program. Affected sources in Arizona and New Mexico that are already 
reporting data as part of the Acid Rain Program only require monitoring 
plan and DAHS updates. For the units that already report to EPA under 
the Acid Rain Program or the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, with the 
exception of any one-time costs to update monitoring plans and DAHS, 
all information collection costs and burden are already reflected in 
the previously approved ICRs for those other rules (OMB Control Nos. 
2060-0258 and 2060-0445).
    In total, there are an estimated 23 units in Arizona and New Mexico 
that do not already report data to EPA according to 40 CFR part 75 and 
that would need to implement one of the Part 75 monitoring 
methodologies including certification of monitoring systems or 
implementation of the low mass emissions methodology. These units would 
also require monitoring plan and DAHS updates. Of these 23 units, nine 
units would be expected to adopt low mass emissions (LME) as the 
monitoring method and 14 would be expected to adopt NO<INF>X</INF> 
CEMS/Appendix D monitoring methods.
    Respondents/affected entities: Industry respondents are stationary, 
fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving electricity 
generators subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, as well as 
non-source entities voluntarily participating in allowance trading 
activities. Potential State respondents are states that can elect to 
submit state-determined allowance allocations for sources located in 
their states.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Industry respondents: voluntary 
and mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that there would be 
64 industry respondents.
    Frequency of response: on occasion, quarterly, and annually.
    Total estimated additional burden: 7,538 hours (per year). Burden 
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated additional cost: $1,243,126 (per year); includes 
$593,874 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4906001b08163a3c2b24203a3a2026270926242b672c2639672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e71776c7f614d4b5c53574d4d5751507e51535c105b514e10595148">[email protected]</span></a>, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than March 18, 
2024. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final 
rule.
2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating Units
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule are 
included within OMB ICR Number 2060-0744, ICR for the Final Rule, 
Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards: Transport Obligations for non-Electric Generating 
Units. The EPA submitted this ICR to OMB under the PRA during the 
development of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In this action, the EPA 
proposes to extend the non-EGU regulatory requirements to affected 
units within the State of Arizona under the same rationale provided in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Because the respondent pool in this 
action is not well-defined and because the number of affected non-EGU 
sources in Arizona estimated to install controls is fewer than ten, we 
are not proposing to develop a new ICR or revise the existing ICR at 
this time. We will, however, revise the ICR to include any covered non-
EGU sources in Arizona when we renew the ICR. The EPA has filed a copy 
of the non-EGU ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    ICR No. 2060-0744 is an existing ICR that addresses the burden 
associated with new regulatory requirements under the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan. Owners and operators of certain non-EGU industry 
stationary sources will potentially modify or install new emissions 
controls and associated monitoring systems to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions limits of this final rule. The burden in ICR 2060-0744 
reflects the new monitoring, calibrating, recordkeeping, reporting and 
testing activities required of covered industrial sources, which we are 
collecting to ensure compliance with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In 
accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, any monitoring information 
to be submitted by sources is a matter of public record. Information 
received and identified by owners or operators as CBI and approved as 
CBI by the EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart 
B, shall be maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, 
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 
42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities 
are the owners/operators of certain non-EGU industry sources in the 
following industry sectors: furnaces in Glass and Glass Product 
Manufacturing; boilers and furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and 
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; kilns in Cement and Cement Product 
Manufacturing; reciprocating internal combustion engines in Pipeline 
Transportation of Natural Gas; and boilers in Metal Ore Mining, Basic 
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and 
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and

[[Page 12724]]

combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary and mandatory. 
(Sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA). Data recorded or reported by 
respondents are required by the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
    Estimated number of respondents: 3,328.
    Frequency of response: The specific frequency for each information 
collection activity within the non-EGU ICR is shown at the end of the 
ICR document in Tables 1 through 18. In general, the frequency varies 
across the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities. Some 
recordkeeping such as work plan preparation is a one-time activity 
whereas pipeline engine maintenance recordkeeping is conducted 
quarterly. Reporting frequency is on an annual basis.
    Total estimated burden: 11,481 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,823,000 (average per year); includes 
$2,400,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses, which includes EGUs and non-EGUs and are briefly described 
below. In 2028, the EPA identified a total of four EGUs owned by small 
entities affected by the proposed rule. Of these, no small entities are 
estimated to have costs greater than 1 percent of revenues.
    The Agency has determined that there is not a significant number of 
small entities potentially affected by the proposed rule that will have 
compliance costs greater than 1 percent of annual revenues during the 
compliance period. The EPA has concluded that there is not a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for this proposed rule overall. Details of this analysis are presented 
in section 3 of the EIA, which is in the public docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal government. The 
action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
    The EPA is proposing a finding that interstate transport of ozone 
precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of the 2015 
ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing FIP requirements to 
eliminate interstate transport of ozone precursors from these five 
states. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA is proposing to extend FIP 
requirements to apply in Indian country located within the upwind 
geography of the final rule, including Indian reservation lands and 
other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The EPA's proposed 
determinations in this regard are described further in section V.B., 
Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate 
Finding. The EPA proposes that all covered existing and new EGU and 
non-EGU sources that are located in the ``301(d) FIP'' areas within the 
geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which would be subject 
to this rule if located within areas subject to State CAA planning 
authority, should be included in this rule. To the EPA's knowledge, two 
covered existing EGU or non-EGU sources are located within the 301(d) 
FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort Mojave 
Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo 
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the 
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. This action has Tribal 
implication because of the extension of FIP requirements into Indian 
country and because, in general, tribes have a vested interest in how 
this final rule would affect air quality.
    The EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA Policy on 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process 
of developing the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to permit them to have 
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA hosted an 
environmental justice webinar on October 26, 2021, that was attended by 
State regulatory authorities, environmental groups, federally 
recognized tribes, and small business stakeholders. Summaries of prior 
consultations are included in the docket for the Federal Good Neighbor 
Plan (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668). The EPA will also continue 
to consult with the governments of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of the 
Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation of the Navajo Reservation, 
and plans to further consult with any other Tribal officials under the 
EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in 
the process of developing this proposed regulation to solicit 
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA plans to 
issue Tribal consultation letters addressed to the appropriate tribes 
in [Month Year] after the proposed rule is signed. Consultation 
summaries will be included in the docket for this action and in a 
summary section in the preamble when this action is finalized.

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

    Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe 
the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and 
risk assessments are contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Economic 
Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor 
Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard. The EPA determined that the ozone-related benefits, 
Fine Particulate Matter-related benefits, and CO<INF>2</INF>-related 
benefits from this final rule will further improve children's health.
    However, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this 
action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available in the 
Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed

[[Page 12725]]

Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 
8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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. The EPA has prepared a Statement of 
Energy Effects for the proposed regulatory control alternative as 
follows. The Agency estimates a 0 percent change in retail electricity 
prices on average across the contiguous U.S. in 2025 and a 0 percent 
change in retail electricity prices on average across the contiguous 
U.S. in 2028 as a result of this proposed rule. Additional details of 
the estimated retail electricity price changes are presented in section 
3 of the EIA at proposal, which is in the public docket.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and 
adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The 
documentation for this decision is contained in section VIII. 
Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications, and Outreach of 
this Preamble. Briefly, proximity demographic analyses found larger 
percentages of Hispanics, people below the poverty level, people with 
less educational attainment, and people linguistically isolated are 
living within 5 km and 10 km of an affected EGU, compared to national 
averages. It also finds larger percentages of Native Americans and 
people below the poverty level living within 5 km and 10 km of an 
affected non-EGU facility.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. Importantly, the action described in this rule is 
expected to lower ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in some areas, including 
in ozone nonattainment areas, and thus mitigate some pre-existing 
health risks across most populations and communities evaluated.

K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final 
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for 
review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit: (1) when the Agency action 
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final 
actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (2) when such action is 
locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a 
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such 
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based 
on such a determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final 
actions, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide 
whether to invoke the exception in (2).\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and 
publishing a finding that an action is based on a determination of 
nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator takes into account a 
number of policy considerations, including his judgment balancing 
the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's authoritative 
centralized review versus allowing development of the issue in other 
contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA anticipates that this proposed rulemaking, if finalized, 
would be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of CAA section 
307(b)(1) because it would extend the applicability of the Federal Good 
Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023 (88 FR 36654 (June 5, 
2023)), which as promulgated would apply to 23 states across the 
nation, to five additional states located in four EPA regions and four 
Federal judicial circuits, in conjunction with partial disapproval of 
the SIP submissions from these five states. The final rule would 
directly implement the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in these five 
additional states based on application of the same, nationally 
consistent 4-step interstate transport framework for assessing good 
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that the EPA applied in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023, and in 
other nationally applicable rulemakings, such as CSAPR, the CSAPR 
Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update. The final rule would thus apply a 
uniform, nationwide analytical method and interpretation of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) across the covered states, expanding the scope of 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to a total of up to 28 states across the 
nation. The final rule would also make technical corrections to the 
nationally applicable regulatory provisions promulgated in the Federal 
Good Neighbor Plan, see section X.C. of this document.
    In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this action, if 
finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator 
intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the 
CAA to make and publish a finding that the final action is based on 
several determinations of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the 
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This proposal, if finalized, would be 
based on several determinations of nationwide scope or effect, each of 
which has the purpose of ensuring consistency and equity across all 
states, including: (1) the determination that use of the same 2023 and 
2026 analytical year air quality modeling and monitoring analytics 
(including the use of the violating-monitor receptor identification 
methodology) that were used to define all other states' good neighbor 
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for purposes of 
defining the obligations of the five additional states in this action; 
(2) the determination that use of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold is 
appropriate for all states at Step 2 and that neither reliance on the 
EPA's August 2018 1 ppb Memo standing alone nor reliance on EPA's 
guidance on ``significant impact levels'' (SIL) for the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program provides adequate 
justification for an alternative threshold; (3) the determination that 
the same level of emissions control stringency to the same industry and 
source types at Step 3 as was determined for 23 other states in the 
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is appropriate to apply to these five 
additional states; and (4) the determination that the relevant sources 
in these five states should be subject to the same nationally uniform 
emissions control programs promulgated at Step 4 for 23 other states in 
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also 
appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple judicial 
circuits. In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's 
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception 
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or 
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These determinations would provide important bases for the action, 
if finalized, are needed to ensure consistency and equity in the 
treatment of all states in addressing the multistate problem of 
interstate ozone pollution

[[Page 12726]]

under the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and are not 
related to the particularities of the emissions sources in any specific 
state. The Federal Good Neighbor Plan and related rulemakings such as 
this one are designed as a ``collective approach'' to effectively 
address the nationwide problem of interstate ozone transport in an 
equitable and consistent manner across all states. See Kentucky Energy 
and Environment Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023), 
Order at 8. The determinations underlying this proposed action are 
therefore of nationwide scope and effect, among other reasons, because 
they ensure that the requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan 
(until replaced by SIPs meeting the statutory requirements) will be 
implemented on a consistent basis across all ``upwind'' states, and 
will deliver the full amount of relief from upwind emissions that the 
EPA has found downwind jurisdictions are due.\175\ For these reasons, 
the Administrator intends, if this proposed action is finalized, to 
exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make 
and publish a finding that this action is based on several 
determinations of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA 
section 307(b)(1), including, but not limited to, those identified 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's 
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception 
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or 
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is subject to the provisions of CAA 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). This proposed action, among other things, proposes 
Federal implementation plans for five additional states to extend the 
coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated at 88 FR 36654 
(June 5, 2023). To the extent any portion of this action is not 
expressly identified under CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the Administrator 
determines that the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to such 
action. See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) 
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine'').

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
dioxide.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.38 by:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(C) and (a)(5)(i)(C), removing ``following 
the control'' and adding in its place ``following the year of such 
control'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), removing ``2017 and each subsequent 
year'' and adding in its place ``2017 through 2024 only, except as 
provided in paragraph (b)(14)(iii) of this section'';
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E);
0
d. In paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(C), (b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(8)(iii)(C), and 
(b)(9)(iii)(C), removing ``following the control'' and adding in its 
place ``following the year of such control'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(10) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), removing ``2024, of'' and adding in its 
place ``2026, of'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (b)(10)(v)(A) and (B);
0
h. In paragraph (b)(11)(iii) introductory text and paragraph 
(b)(12)(iii) introductory text, removing ``2025 or'' and adding in its 
place ``2025 (or for a State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this 
section, 2027) or'';
0
i. In paragraph (b)(14)(i)(G), removing ``Sec.  97.826(f)'' and adding 
in its place ``Sec.  97.826(g)'';
0
j. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii) introductory text, removing ``paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), (b)(2)(iii)(D)(1), or'' and adding 
in its place ``paragraph (b)(2) or'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(A);
0
l. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B), removing ``97.826(d) and (e), and'' 
and adding in its place ``97.826(d) through (f), and''; and
0
m. In paragraph (b)(17)(i), removing ``2024'' and adding in its place 
``2026''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.38  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to 
emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (E) The provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter 
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country 
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions 
occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year: Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New 
Mexico, and Tennessee.
* * * * *
    (10) State-determined allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 
allowances for 2026. A State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this 
section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator 
will approve, as CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowance 
allocation provisions replacing the provisions in Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) 
of this chapter with regard to sources in the State and areas of Indian 
country within the borders of the State subject to the State's SIP 
authority for the control period in 2026, a list of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units and the amount of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to each unit 
on such list, provided that the list of units and allocations meets the 
following requirements:
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) By [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the State must 
notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the 
Administrator of the State's intent to submit to the Administrator a 
complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i) 
through (iv) of this section by April 1, 2025; and
    (B) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP 
revision described in paragraph (b)(10)(v)(A) of this section by April 
1, 2025.
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (iii) * * *

[[Page 12727]]

    (A) The provisions of Sec. Sec.  97.526(c), 97.826(c), and 
97.1026(c) of this chapter (concerning the transfer of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1 allowances, CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> 
Ozone Season Group 2 allowances, and CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 allowances between certain Allowance Management System accounts 
under common control);
* * * * *


Sec.  52.39  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.39 in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iii), 
(h)(1)(iii), and (i)(1)(iii) by removing ``following the control'' and 
adding in its place ``following the year of such control''.
0
4. Amend Sec.  52.40 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``paragraph (b)'' and adding in its place 
``paragraph (c)(1)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b):
0
i. In the introductory text, removing the section symbol before 
``52.46'';
0
ii. Revising the definitions ``Existing affected unit'' and ``New 
affected unit''; and
0
iii. Adding the definition ``Ozone season'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), removing ``(defined as May 1 through September 
30 of a calendar year)'';
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(2)(i) and adding 
paragraph (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2), removing ``May 1, 2029'' and adding in its 
place ``the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the 
applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and (d)(4) through (8) and paragraph 
(d)(9) introductory text;
0
h. In paragraph (d)(9)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its 
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
i. Revising paragraphs (d)(10) and (11) and (e)(1);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)(1), removing ``63.7(e)(2)(ii)(2), or'' and 
adding in its place ``63.7(e)(2)(ii), or'';
0
k. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) through (6) and paragraph (e)(7) 
introductory text;
0
l. In paragraph (e)(7)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its 
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
m. Revising paragraph (e)(8);
0
n. In paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its 
place ``CEDRI or an''; and
0
o. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(D) and (g)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.40  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
sources not subject to the CSAPR ozone season trading program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Existing affected unit means any affected unit for which 
construction commenced before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State 
listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of 
this section.
    New affected unit means any affected unit for which construction 
commenced on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in 
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    Ozone season means the period between May 1 and September 30, 
inclusive, for a given year.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (ii) The provisions of this section or Sec.  52.41, Sec.  52.42, 
Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  52.46 apply to affected 
units located in each of the following States, including Indian country 
located within the borders of such States, beginning in the 2027 ozone 
season and in each subsequent ozone season: Arizona.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.  
52.41, Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those 
sections by the start date of the first ozone season identified for the 
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, due to 
circumstances entirely beyond the owner or operator's control, may 
request an initial compliance extension to a date certain no later than 
the start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable 
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The extension request must 
contain a demonstration of necessity consistent with the requirements 
of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) Identify the owner or operator's proposed compliance date. A 
request for an initial compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later than the 
start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable 
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and state whether the owner 
or operator anticipates a need to request a second compliance 
extension. A request for a second compliance extension under paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later 
than the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the 
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and identify 
additional actions taken by the owner or operator to ensure that the 
affected unit(s) will be in compliance with the applicable requirements 
in this section by that proposed compliance date;
* * * * *
    (4) Each request for a compliance extension shall be submitted via 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an 
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA no later 
than 180 days prior to the applicable compliance date. Until an 
extension has been granted by the Administrator under this section, the 
owner or operator of an affected unit shall comply with all applicable 
requirements of this section and shall remain subject to the compliance 
date under paragraph (c)(2) of this section or the initial extended 
compliance date under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, as applicable. 
A denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
    (5) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a 
compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section and 
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant 
title V permit revised to incorporate the conditions of the extension 
of compliance. The conditions of a compliance extension granted under 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section will be incorporated into the affected 
unit's title V permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved 
state operating permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40 
CFR part 71, whichever apply.
    (6) Based on the information provided in any request made under 
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section or other information, the 
Administrator may grant an extension of time to comply with applicable 
requirements in Sec.  52.41, Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, 
Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  52.46 consistent with the provisions of paragraph 
(d)(1) or (2). The decision to grant an extension will be provided by 
notification in writing or via an electronic submission system provided 
by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify each 
affected unit covered by the extension; specify the termination date of 
the extension; and specify any additional conditions that the 
Administrator deems necessary

[[Page 12728]]

to ensure timely installation of the necessary controls (e.g., the 
date(s) by which on-site construction, installation of control 
equipment, and/or process changes will be initiated).
    (7) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of an affected unit who has requested a compliance extension 
under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section whether the submitted 
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient 
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after 
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after 
receipt of any supplementary information.
    (8) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of a decision to grant or intention to deny a request for a 
compliance extension within 60 calendar days after providing written 
notification pursuant to paragraph (d)(7) of this section that the 
submitted request is complete.
    (9) Before denying any request for an extension of compliance, the 
Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an electronic 
submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or operator of the 
Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together with:
* * * * *
    (10) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for an 
extension will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will 
set forth the specific grounds on which the denial is based. The final 
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of 
additional information or argument (if the request is complete), or 
within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the submission of 
additional information or argument under paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this 
section, if no such submission is made.
    (11) The granting of an extension under this section shall not 
abrogate the Administrator's authority under section 114 of the Act.
    (e) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.  
52.41, Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those 
sections due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship 
may submit to the Administrator, by August 5, 2024, for a unit in a 
State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [ONE YEAR AFTER 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in 
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a request for approval of a case-
by-case emissions limit. The request must be submitted via CEDRI or an 
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA and shall 
contain information sufficient for the Administrator to confirm that 
the affected unit is unable to comply with the applicable emissions 
limit, due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship, and 
to establish an appropriate alternative case-by-case emissions limit 
for the affected unit. Until a case-by-case emissions limit has been 
approved by the Administrator under this section, the owner or operator 
shall remain subject to all applicable requirements in Sec.  52.41, 
Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  52.46. A 
denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
* * * * *
    (3) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a 
case-by-case emissions limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section and 
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant 
title V permit revised to incorporate the case-by-case emissions limit. 
Any case-by-case emissions limit approved under paragraph (e)(4) of 
this section will be incorporated into the affected unit's title V 
permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved state operating 
permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40 CFR part 71, 
whichever apply.
    (4) Based on the information provided in any request made under 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section or other information, the 
Administrator may approve a case-by-case emissions limit that will 
apply to an affected unit in lieu of the applicable emissions limit in 
Sec.  52.41, Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or 
Sec.  52.46. The decision to approve a case-by-case emissions limit 
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system 
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify 
each affected unit covered by the case-by-case emissions limit.
    (5) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of an affected unit who has requested a case-by-case emissions 
limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section whether the submitted 
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient 
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after 
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after 
receipt of any supplementary information.
    (6) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of a decision to approve or intention to deny the request for 
a case-by-case emissions limit within 60 calendar days after providing 
notification pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of this section that the 
submitted request is complete.
    (7) Before denying any request for a case-by-case emissions limit, 
the Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an 
electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of the Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together 
with:
* * * * *
    (8) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for a 
case-by-case emissions limit will be provided by notification in 
writing or via an electronic submission system provided by the EPA, 
will be made publicly available, and will set forth the specific 
grounds on which the denial is based. The final decision will be made 
within 60 calendar days after presentation of additional information or 
argument (if the request is complete), or within 60 calendar days after 
the deadline for the submission of additional information or argument 
under paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, if no such submission is 
made.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f39c9282838090919ab3968392dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f29d9383828191909bb2978293dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>, 
should include clear CBI markings as described in paragraph 
(g)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, and should be flagged to the attention 
of Lead of 2015 Ozone Transport FIP. If assistance is needed with 
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for 
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing 
service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef808e9e9f9c8c8d86af8a9f8ec1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="77181606070414151e3712071659101801">[email protected]</span></a> to request a file transfer link.
* * * * *
    (2) Annual reports and excess emissions reports must be submitted 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA

[[Page 12729]]

to report data required by Sec.  52.41, Sec.  52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  
52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  52.46.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  52.41 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Cap'', removing ``sum each'' and adding in 
its place ``sum of each'';
0
ii. In the definition for ``Facility'', removing ``20 states identified 
in Sec.  52.40(b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``set of states 
identified in Sec.  52.40(c)''; and
0
iii. In the definition for ``Rich burn'', removing ``affected unit 
where'' and adding in its place ``affected units where'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), 
and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d) introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and 
adding in its place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. Redesignating the second paragraph (d)(1)(iv) as paragraph 
(d)(1)(v);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4), removing ``an affected units'' and adding in 
its place ``an affected unit'';
0
f. Removing paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and redesignating paragraph 
(e)(3)(iv) as paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
0
g. In paragraph (e)(5) introductory text, removing ``owner of 
operator'' and adding in its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(6) and paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
i. In paragraph (f)(1), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)'' and adding in its 
place ``paragraph (e)(3)'';
0
j. In paragraph (f)(2), removing ``paragraph (e)(3)'' and adding in its 
place ``paragraph (e)(4)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), paragraph (g)(3) introductory 
text, and paragraph (g)(3)(i).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.41  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
the Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas Industry?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For purposes of this section, the owner or operator of an 
emergency stationary RICE must operate the RICE according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section to 
be treated as an emergency stationary RICE. In order for a stationary 
RICE to be treated as an emergency RICE under this section, any 
operation other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, and 
operation in non-emergency situations for up to 50 hours per year, as 
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii), is prohibited. If you 
do not operate the RICE according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i) through (iii), the RICE will not be considered an emergency 
engine under this section and must meet all requirements for affected 
units in this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator may operate an emergency stationary RICE 
for maintenance checks and readiness testing for a maximum of 100 hours 
per calendar year, provided that the tests are recommended by a 
Federal, state, or local government agency, the manufacturer, the 
vendor, or the insurance company associated with the engine. Any 
operation for non-emergency situations as allowed by paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii) of this section counts as part of the 100 hours per 
calendar year allowed by this paragraph (b)(1)(ii). The owner or 
operator may petition the Administrator for approval of additional 
hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a 
petition is not required if the owner or operator maintains records 
confirming that Federal, state, or local standards require maintenance 
and testing of emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per calendar year. Any 
petition must be submitted via CEDRI or an analogous electronic 
submission system provided by the EPA. Any approval of a petition for 
additional hours granted by the Administrator under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart ZZZZ, shall constitute approval by the Administrator of the 
same petition under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
    (c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an 
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a 
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for 
the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that is 
only operated during peak periods outside of the ozone season and your 
hours of operation during the ozone season are 50 or less, you are not 
subject to the testing and monitoring requirements of paragraphs (e)(4) 
and (5) of this section as long as you record and report your hours of 
operation during the ozone season in accordance with paragraphs (f) and 
(g) of this section.
    (f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of 
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following 
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone 
season consistent with the requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after completing each performance 
test required by this section. The results must be submitted following 
the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous 
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data 
required by this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph 
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted 
following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI or an 
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report 
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made 
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in 
CEDRI.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual 
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall contain the following information:
    (i) The name and address of the owner or operator;
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  52.42 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the definition ``Cement plant'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1):
0
i. In the definition for ``P'', removing ``Time'' and adding in its 
place ``time''; and
0
ii. In the definition for ``n'', removing ``n = Number'' and adding in 
its place ``N = Number'';
0
d. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone 
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season 
identified for the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)'';

[[Page 12730]]

0
e. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), removing ``paragraph (e)'' and adding in its 
place ``paragraph (f)''; and
0
f. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text, paragraphs (f)(1) through 
(3), and paragraph (g)(2) introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.42  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
the Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing Industry?

* * * * *
    (b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements of this 
section if you own or operate a new or existing cement kiln that is 
located within any of the States listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2), including 
Indian country located within the borders of any such State(s), and 
emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of 
NO<INF>X</INF> on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed 
in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit 
in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing cement kiln 
with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> 
on the date specified for the unit in the preceding sentence will 
continue to be subject to the requirements of this section even if that 
unit later becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that 
lowers its potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an 
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a 
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for 
the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
    (e) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of 
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following 
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone 
season consistent with the requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this section. The results must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established 
under paragraph (c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual 
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by 
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or 
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits 
under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (g) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits 
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> 
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a 
State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator 
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be 
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit 
in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following 
information:
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  52.43 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(1), paragraph (d)(4) introductory 
text, and paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii) introductory text, removing ``via the CEDRI 
or analogous'' and adding in its place ``in writing or via an'';
0
c. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B), removing ``in writing, within'' and 
adding in its place ``via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA, within'';
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4)(v), removing ``August 5, 2024, the'' and adding 
in its place ``the submission deadline specified for the unit in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the'';
0
f. In paragraph (e)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone 
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season 
identified for the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii), removing ``a site-specific indicator'' and 
adding in its place ``site-specific indicator ranges'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (f)'' and adding in 
its place ``paragraph (g)'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
j. In paragraph (f)(8), removing ``paragraph (d)'' and adding in its 
place ``paragraph (e)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) and paragraph (h)(2) 
introductory text.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.43  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry?

* * * * *
    (b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to each 
new or existing reheat furnace at an iron and steel mill or ferroalloy 
manufacturing facility that is located within any of the States listed 
in Sec.  52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the 
borders of any such State(s), does not have low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners 
installed, and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per 
year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit 
in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any 
existing reheat furnace without low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners installed 
and with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of 
NO<INF>X</INF> on the date specified for the unit in the preceding 
sentence will continue to be subject to the requirements of this 
section even if that unit later installs low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners or 
becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that lowers its 
potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF>.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator of each affected unit must submit a work 
plan for each affected unit by August 5, 2024,

[[Page 12731]]

for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [ONE YEAR 
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in 
Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii). The work plan must be submitted via CEDRI or an 
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA. Each work 
plan must include a description of the affected unit and rated 
production and energy capacities, identification of the low-
NO<INF>X</INF> burner or alternative low NO<INF>X</INF> technology 
selected, and the phased construction timeframe by which you will 
design, install, and consistently operate the device. Each work plan 
shall also include, where applicable, performance test results obtained 
no more than five years before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State 
listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for 
a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii), to be used as 
baseline emissions testing data providing the basis for required 
emissions reductions. If no such data exist, then the owner or operator 
must perform pre-installation testing as described in paragraph (e)(3) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) The Administrator will act as follows with respect to each 
submitted work plan:
    (i) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of an affected unit if the submitted work plan is complete, 
that is, whether the submission contains sufficient information to make 
a determination, within 60 calendar days after receipt of the original 
work plan and within 60 calendar days after receipt of any 
supplementary information.
    (ii) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via 
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or 
operator of a decision to approve or intention to disapprove the work 
plan within 60 calendar days after providing written notification 
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section that the submitted work 
plan is complete. Any decision to approve a work plan will be made 
publicly available.
* * * * *
    (iv) The Administrator's final decision to disapprove a work plan 
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system 
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will set 
forth the specific grounds on which the disapproval is based. The final 
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of 
additional information or argument (if the submitted work plan is 
complete), or within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the 
submission of additional information or argument under paragraph 
(d)(4)(iii)(B) of this section, if no such submission is made.
* * * * *
    (f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of 
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following 
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone 
season consistent with the requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit a final report via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA, by no later than one month before the start 
date of the first ozone season identified for the applicable State in 
Sec.  52.40(c)(2), certifying that installation of each selected 
control device has been completed. You shall include in the report the 
dates of final construction and relevant performance testing, where 
applicable, demonstrating compliance with the selected emission limits 
pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this section. The results must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established 
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Excess emissions reports 
must be submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI.
    (4) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual 
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by 
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data or 
operating parameters required by paragraph (e) of this section to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limits established 
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (h) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that does 
not have low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners installed and that emits or has a 
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> as of 
August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), 
or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in 
Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator that the unit is 
subject to this section. The notification shall be submitted in PDF 
format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission system provided 
by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a State 
listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii). 
CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The 
notification shall provide the following information:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  52.44 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Affected units'', removing ``Affected units 
means'' and adding ``Affected unit means''; and
0
ii. Revising the definition ``Wool fiberglass'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text and paragraph (e)(1) 
introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its place 
``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. In paragraph (g)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone 
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season 
identified for the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)'';
0
e. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), removing ``a'';
0
f. In paragraph (g)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (h)'' and adding in 
its place ``paragraph (i)'';
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1) introductory text;

[[Page 12732]]

0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(1)(vii)(D), (h)(1)(viii), and 
(h)(1)(ix) as paragraphs (h)(1)(viii), (h)(1)(ix), and (h)(1)(x), 
respectively;
0
i. In paragraph (h)(2), adding a second sentence;
0
j. In paragraph (h)(3), adding a third sentence; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) and paragraph (j)(2) 
introductory text.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.44  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
the Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing Industry?

    (a) * * *
    Wool fiberglass means fibrous glass of random texture, including 
acoustical board and tile (mineral wool), fiberglass insulation, glass 
wool, insulation (rock wool, fiberglass, slag, and silica minerals), 
and mineral wool roofing mats.
    (b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements under this 
section if you own or operate a new or existing glass manufacturing 
furnace that is located within any of the States listed in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the borders of any 
such State(s), and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons 
per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> on or after August 4, 2023, for a 
unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any 
existing glass manufacturing furnace with a potential to emit of 100 
tons per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> on the date specified for the 
unit in the preceding sentence will continue to be subject to the 
requirements of this section even if that unit later becomes subject to 
a physical or operational limitation that lowers its potential to emit 
below 100 tons per year of NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an 
affected unit, you must meet the emissions limitations in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section on a 30-day rolling average basis during 
each ozone season identified for the applicable State in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2), provided that such emissions limitations shall not apply 
to the unit during startup, shutdown, and/or idling in any ozone season 
for which the unit complies with the startup requirements in paragraph 
(d) of this section, the shutdown requirements in paragraph (e) of this 
section, and/or the idling requirements in paragraph (f) of this 
section, respectively.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
maintain records of the following information for each day the affected 
unit operates during the ozone season consistent with the requirements 
of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (2) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the 
requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f).
    (3) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the 
requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f).
    (i) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this section. The results must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph 
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted 
following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI or an 
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report 
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made 
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in 
CEDRI.
    (3) If you own or operate an affected unit, you shall submit an 
annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual reports 
must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI 
or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to 
report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must 
be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by 
paragraph (h) of this section, including records of CEMS data or 
operating parameters required by paragraph (g) of this section to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits 
under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (j) * * *
    (2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits 
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NO<INF>X</INF> 
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a 
State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator 
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be 
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission 
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit 
in a State listed in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.  
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following 
information:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec.  52.45 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a), in the definition for ``Maximum heat input 
capacity'', removing the second ``means'' before ``the ability'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, removing ``paragraph (f)(2)'' 
and adding in its place ``paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(3)'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, removing ``May 1, 2026'' and 
adding in its place ``the start date of the first ozone season 
identified for the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing ``emission rate'' and adding in its 
place ``emissions rate'';
0
h. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, removing ``mmBTU/hr'' and 
adding in its place ``mmBtu/hr'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
j. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), removing ``coal and span value'' and adding 
in its place ``coal and a span value'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) and paragraph (d)(3) introductory 
text;
0
l. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing ``affected units operates'' and 
adding in its place ``affected unit operates'';
0
m. In paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), removing ``emission rates'' 
and adding in its place ``emissions rates'';
0
n. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(iv);
0
o. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
0
p. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, paragraph (e)(2) 
introductory text, and paragraphs (e)(2)(v) and (f)(1) through (3); and
0
q. Removing paragraph (f)(4).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

[[Page 12733]]

Sec.  52.45  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
the Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills, Metal Ore Mining, and 
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industries?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this section apply to each new or existing 
boiler with a design capacity of 100 mmBtu/hr or greater that received 
90% or more of its heat input from coal, residual oil, distillate oil, 
natural gas, or combinations of these fuels in the previous ozone 
season; is located at sources that are within the Basic Chemical 
Manufacturing industry, the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 
industry, the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills industry, the Metal Ore 
Mining industry, and the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy 
Manufacturing industry; and is located within any of the States listed 
in Sec.  52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the 
borders of any such State(s). The requirements of this section do not 
apply to an emissions unit that meets the requirements for a low-use 
exemption as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that 
exceeds the 10% per year hour of operation over three years criterion 
or the 20% hours of operation per year criterion, you can no longer 
comply via the low-use exemption provisions and must meet the 
applicable emissions limits and other applicable provisions as soon as 
possible but not later than one year from the date eligibility as a 
low-use boiler was negated by exceedance of the low-use boiler 
criteria.
* * * * *
    (c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an 
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a 
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for 
the applicable State in Sec.  52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The 1-hour average NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rates measured by 
the CEMS shall be expressed in terms of lbs/mmBtu heat input and shall 
be used to calculate the average emissions rates under paragraph (c) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (vii) You may delay installing a CEMS for NO<INF>X</INF> until 
after the initial performance test has been conducted. If you 
demonstrate during the performance test that emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> are less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions 
limit in paragraph (c) of this section, you are not required to install 
a CEMS for measuring NO<INF>X</INF>. If you demonstrate your affected 
unit emits less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions limit and 
choose to not install a CEMS, you must submit a request via CEDRI or an 
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the 
Administrator that documents the results of the initial performance 
test and includes an alternative monitoring procedure that will be used 
to track compliance with the applicable NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
limit(s) in paragraph (c) of this section. The Administrator may 
consider the request and, following public notice and comment, may 
approve the alternative monitoring procedure with or without revision, 
or disapprove the request. If the Administrator approves the request 
for the alternative monitoring procedure, you must request that the 
relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring procedure into 
the facility's title V permit. Upon receipt of a disapproved request, 
you will have one year to install a CEMS.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit with a 
heat input capacity less than 250 mmBtu/hr, you must monitor 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions via the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section or you must monitor NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by conducting 
an annual test in conjunction with the implementation of a monitoring 
plan meeting the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (iv) You shall submit the monitoring plan to the EPA via CEDRI or 
an analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA, and 
request that the relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring 
plan into the facility's title V permit.
    (e) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit which is 
not a low-use boiler, you shall maintain records of the following 
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone 
season consistent with the requirements of Sec.  52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit complying 
as a low-use boiler, you must maintain the following records for each 
operating day of the calendar year consistent with the requirements of 
Sec.  52.40(f):
* * * * *
    (v) The annual hours of operation for each of the prior 3 years, 
and the 3-year average hours of operation.
    (f) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this section. The results must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this 
section, that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph (c) 
of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following 
the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous 
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data 
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in 
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in 
CEDRI.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual 
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by 
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or 
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits 
under paragraph (c) of this section.
0
10. Amend Sec.  52.46 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Removing the definitions ``mass burn refractory waste combustor'', 
``mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass 
burn waterwall municipal waste combustor'';
0
ii. Adding the definition ``Municipal solid waste or MSW'' in 
alphabetical order; and

[[Page 12734]]

0
iii. In the definition for ``Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or 
municipal waste combustor unit'', paragraph (i), removing ``Means any'' 
and adding in its place ``Any'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing ``and'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), removing ``at 7 percent oxygen'';
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
g. In paragraph (d)(5), removing ``owner and operator'' and adding in 
its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, removing ``NO<INF>X</INF> 
are'' and adding in its palace ``NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(vi) introductory text and paragraphs 
(e)(1)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vi)(B), and (e)(2)(vii);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)(iv)'' and 
adding in its place ``paragraph (e)(2)(vi)'';
0
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3);
0
l. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(3);
0
m. In paragraph (f)(4), removing ``occurrence that'' and adding in its 
place ``occurrence where'';
0
n. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2); and
0
o. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  52.46  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from 
Municipal Waste Combustors?

    (a) * * *
    Municipal solid waste or MSW means ``municipal solid waste or 
municipal-type solid waste or MSW'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.51b.
* * * * *
    (c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an 
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations at all 
times on a 24-hour block average basis and a 30-day rolling average 
basis during each ozone season identified for the applicable State in 
Sec.  52.40(c)(2), using NO<INF>X</INF> measurements corrected to 7 
percent oxygen except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(B) 
of this section:
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Duration of startup and shutdown periods is limited to 3 hours 
per occurrence.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) If you select carbon dioxide for use in diluent corrections, 
you shall follow the requirements of 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6) to establish 
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels:
    (A) This relationship shall be established during the initial 
performance test and may be reestablished during performance compliance 
tests; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) Each NO<INF>X</INF> 1-hour arithmetic average shall be 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour 
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) CEMS data, except 
that NO<INF>X</INF> data for an hour identified as falling within a 
period of startup or shutdown in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2) 
through (4) of this section can reflect NO<INF>X</INF> as measured at 
stack oxygen content without such correction.
    (vii) The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be expressed in parts 
per million by volume (dry basis) and shall be used to calculate the 
24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic 
averages shall be calculated using the data points required under 40 
CFR 60.13(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of 
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following 
information, as applicable, for each day the affected unit operates 
during the ozone season consistent with the requirements of Sec.  
52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
    (3) Identification of the calendar dates and times (hours) for 
which valid hourly NO<INF>X</INF> emissions data have not been 
obtained, including reasons for not obtaining the data and a 
description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must 
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of 
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each 
performance test required by this section. The results must be 
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via 
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA 
to report data required by this section.
    (2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are 
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess 
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions 
are defined as any calculated 24-hour block average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate or calculated 30-day rolling average NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, 
that exceeds the respective emissions limit in paragraph (c) of this 
section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following the 
procedures specified in Sec.  52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous 
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data 
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in 
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in 
CEDRI.
    (3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall 
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual 
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec.  52.40(g) 
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the 
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI 
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions 
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all information required by 
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data required 
by paragraph (e) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emissions limits under paragraph (c) of this section.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
11. Add Sec.  52.154 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  52.154  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (a)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located 
in the State of Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the 
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of 
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard 
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation 
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in 
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State 
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the 
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to 
Arizona's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's 
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) under Sec.  52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and 
units, except to the extent

[[Page 12735]]

the Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation 
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units 
located in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not 
subject to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the 
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to 
Arizona's SIP.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, if, at the time of the approval of Arizona's SIP revision 
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Administrator has 
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the 
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control 
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and 
recordation of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to 
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless 
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
    (b) The owner and operator of each source located in the State of 
Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the State and for 
which requirements are set forth in Sec.  52.40 and Sec.  52.41, Sec.  
52.42, Sec.  52.43, Sec.  52.44, Sec.  52.45, or Sec.  52.46 must 
comply with such requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 
2027 and each subsequent year.

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
12. Amend Sec.  52.840 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place 
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.840  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in 
the State of Iowa and Indian country within the borders of the State 
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> 
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of 
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to 
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to 
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the 
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State 
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the 
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to 
Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's 
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) under Sec.  52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the 
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to 
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located 
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject 
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation 
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Iowa's SIP.
    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, if, at the time of the approval of Iowa's SIP revision 
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Administrator has 
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the 
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control 
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and 
recordation of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to 
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless 
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec.  97.826(c) of this chapter 
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the 
provisions of Sec.  97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the 
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different 
amounts of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall 
continue to apply.

Subpart R--Kansas

0
13. Amend Sec.  52.882 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place 
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.882  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in 
the State of Kansas and Indian country within the borders of the State 
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> 
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of 
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to 
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to 
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the 
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State 
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the 
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to 
Kansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's 
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) under Sec.  52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the 
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to 
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located 
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject 
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation 
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kansas' SIP.
    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas' SIP revision 
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Administrator has 
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the 
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control 
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and 
recordation of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to 
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless 
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.

[[Page 12736]]

    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec.  97.826(c) of this chapter 
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the 
provisions of Sec.  97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the 
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different 
amounts of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall 
continue to apply.

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
14. Add Sec.  52.1641 to subpart GG to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1641  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in 
the State of New Mexico and Indian country within the borders of the 
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of 
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard 
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation 
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in 
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State 
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the 
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New 
Mexico's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's 
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan 
(FIP) under Sec.  52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and 
units, except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or 
conditional. The obligation to comply with such requirements with 
regard to sources and units located in areas of Indian country within 
the borders of the State not subject to the State's SIP authority will 
not be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the 
Administrator of a revision to New Mexico SIP.
    (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section, if, at the time of the approval of New Mexico's SIP revision 
described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator has 
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the 
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control 
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and 
recordation of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to 
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless 
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
15. Amend Sec.  52.2240 by:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place 
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second sentence;
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (5).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.2240  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the 
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in 
the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are set forth under 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in 
subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such 
requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 2025 and each 
subsequent year. The obligation to comply with such requirements will 
be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator 
of a revision to Tennessee's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as 
correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) under Sec.  52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), 
except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or 
conditional.
    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee's SIP revision 
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the Administrator has 
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this 
chapter to units in the State for a control period in any year, the 
provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the 
Administrator to complete the allocation and recordation of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to such units for each 
such control period shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise 
by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec.  97.826(c) of this chapter 
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the 
provisions of Sec.  97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the 
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different 
amounts of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall 
continue to apply.

PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND SO2 
TRADING PROGRAMS, CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND TEXAS SO2 
TRADING PROGRAM

0
16. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7491, 7601, and 
7651, et seq.

Subpart BBBBB--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program


Sec.  97.502  [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  97.502 in the definition for ``CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> 
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance'' by removing ``Sec.  97.826(d) or (e), 
or'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
18. Amend Sec.  97.526 by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  97.526  Banking and conversion.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set 
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec.  97.826(f)(1), upon 
any determination that would otherwise result in the initial 
recordation of a given number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 1 allowances in the compliance account for a source in a State 
listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country 
within the borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record 
such CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1 allowances but instead 
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period 
in 2023 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance, 
of such given number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1 
allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph 
(d)(1)(ii) of this section and further divided by the conversion factor 
determined under Sec.  97.826(f)(1)(ii).
    (e) * * *

[[Page 12737]]

    (4) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set 
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec.  97.826(f)(1), the 
owner or operator of a CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1 source 
in a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and 
Indian country within the borders of such a State) may satisfy a 
requirement to hold a given number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 1 allowances for the control period in 2015 or 2016 by holding 
instead, in a general account established for this sole purpose, an 
amount of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the 
control period in 2025 (or any later control period for which the 
allowance transfer deadline defined in Sec.  97.1002 has passed) 
computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such 
given number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 1 allowances 
divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) 
of this section and further divided by the conversion factor determined 
under Sec.  97.826(f)(1)(ii).

Subpart EEEEE--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program


Sec.  97.802  [Amended]

0
19. Amend Sec.  97.802 by:
0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing 
``Sec. Sec.  97.526(d), 97.826(d), and 97.1026(e), and'' and adding in 
its place ``Sec. Sec.  97.526 and 97.1026, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance 
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec.  97.526(d), Sec.  97.826(d), or 
Sec.  97.1026(e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  97.526, Sec.  
97.826, or Sec.  97.1026.''; and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
allowance'', removing ``Sec.  97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its 
place ``Sec.  97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.


Sec.  97.810  [Amended]

0
20. Amend Sec.  97.810 in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii), (a)(7)(i) 
through (iii), (a)(19)(i) and (ii), and (b)(6), (7), and (19) by 
removing ``and thereafter'' and adding in its place ``through 2024''.


Sec.  97.811  [Amended]

0
21. Amend Sec.  97.811(d) heading by adding ``Original'' before ``Group 
2 allowances''.


Sec.  97.824  [Amended]

0
22. Amend Sec.  97.824(c)(2)(ii) by removing ``Sec.  97.526(d), Sec.  
97.826(d), or Sec.  97.1026(e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  
97.526, Sec.  97.826, or Sec.  97.1026, in''.
0
23. Amend Sec.  97.826 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) and adding a new 
paragraph (f);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing 
``this paragraph (f)'' and adding in its place ``this paragraph (g)'';
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (g)(1)(ii)''; and
0
e. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  97.826  Banking and conversion.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The product of the sum of the trading budgets for the control 
period in 2024 under Sec.  97.1010(a)(1)(i) for all States listed in 
Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(B) and (C) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21 
and further multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the number of 
days from August 4, 2023, through September 30, 2023, inclusive, and 
whose denominator is 153.
* * * * *
    (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, part 52 of 
this chapter, or any SIP revision approved under Sec.  52.38(b)(8) or 
(9) of this chapter:
    (1) As soon as practicable on or after [45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will temporarily suspend 
acceptance of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 allowance 
transfers submitted under Sec.  97.822 and, before resuming acceptance 
of such transfers, will take the following actions with regard to every 
compliance account for a CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 
source in a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter 
(and Indian country within the borders of such a State):
    (i) The Administrator will deduct all CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone 
Season Original Group 2 allowances allocated for the control periods in 
2017 through 2024 from each such account.
    (ii) The Administrator will determine a conversion factor equal to 
the greater of 1.0000 or the quotient, expressed to four decimal 
places, of--
    (A) The sum of all CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 
2 allowances deducted from all such accounts under paragraph (e)(1)(i) 
of this section; divided by
    (B) The product of the sum of the preset trading budgets for the 
control period in 2025 under Sec.  97.1010(a)(2)(i) for all States 
listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21.
    (iii) The Administrator will allocate and record in each such 
account an amount of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
allowances for the control period in 2025 computed as the quotient, 
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of the number of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances deducted from 
such account under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section divided by the 
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (2) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set 
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, upon any determination that 
would otherwise result in the initial recordation of a given number of 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances in the 
compliance account for a source in a State listed in Sec.  
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country within the 
borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record such CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances but instead 
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period 
in 2025 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance, 
of such given number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original 
Group 2 allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under 
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (g) * * *
    (3) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set 
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of a 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 2 source in a State listed in 
Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and Indian country within the 
borders of such a State) may satisfy a requirement to hold a given 
number of CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances 
for a control period in 2017 through 2024 by holding instead, in a 
general account established for this sole purpose, an amount of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period 
in 2025 (or any later control period for which the allowance transfer 
deadline defined in Sec.  97.1002 has passed) computed as the quotient, 
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such given number of CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances divided by the 
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this 
section.

Subpart GGGGG--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program


Sec.  97.1002  [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec.  97.1002 by:

[[Page 12738]]

0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing 
``Sec. Sec.  97.526(d) and 97.826(d) and (e), and'' and adding in its 
place ``Sec. Sec.  97.526 and 97.826, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance 
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec.  97.526(d) or Sec.  97.826(d) 
or (e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  97.526 or Sec.  97.826.''; 
and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
allowance'', removing ``Sec.  97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its 
place ``Sec.  97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
25. Amend Sec.  97.1006 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B);
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) introductory text, removing ``paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs 
(c)(3)(i)(A) through (D)'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), removing the semicolon and adding in its 
place a period.
0
d. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B), removing ``; or'' and adding in its place 
a period.
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  97.1006  Standard requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 units at the source, of any excess over 50 tons of the sum for 
such a unit, for all calendar days of the control period, of any 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions on any calendar day of the control period 
exceeding the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions that would have occurred on that 
calendar day if the unit had combusted the same daily heat input and 
emitted at any backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate applicable 
to the unit for that control period.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within 
the borders of such State) listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this 
chapter.
    (ii) A CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 unit shall be 
subject to the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of 
this section for the control period starting on the later of May 1, 
2024, or the deadline applicable to the unit under paragraph (c)(3)(i) 
of this section and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec.  97.1010 by:
0
a. In table 1 to paragraph (a)(1)(i) and table 2 to paragraph 
(a)(2)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'', ``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New 
Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) and (a)(4)(iii)(A);
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B), adding ``applicable'' before ``document 
referenced'';
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); and
0
e. In table 6 to paragraph (e)(3)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'', 
``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical 
order.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  97.1010  State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets, set-
asides, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(i)--State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2021-2025
                                                                         [Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Portion of 2023       Portion of 2023
                                                                                         control period       control period on
                            State                                2021        2022       before August 4,     and after August 4,     2024        2025
                                                                                          2023, before          2023, before
                                                                                            prorating             prorating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arizona.....................................................  ..........  ..........  ....................  ....................  ..........       8,195
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Iowa........................................................  ..........  ..........  ....................  ....................  ..........       9,752
Kansas......................................................  ..........  ..........  ....................  ....................  ..........       4,763
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
New Mexico..................................................  ..........  ..........  ....................  ....................  ..........       2,211
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Tennessee...................................................  ..........  ..........  ....................  ....................  ..........       3,983
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *

               Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2)(i)--Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2026-2029
                                                     [Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      State                            2026            2027            2028            2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Arizona.........................................           5,814           4,913           3,949           3,949
 

[[Page 12739]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Iowa............................................           9,713           9,713           9,713           9,077
Kansas..........................................           4,763           4,763           4,763           4,763
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
New Mexico......................................           2,008           2,008           2,008           2,008
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Tennessee.......................................           3,983           2,666           2,130           1,198
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) The sum for all units in the State meeting the criterion under 
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, without regard to whether such 
units also meet the criteria under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) of 
this section, of the total heat input amounts reported in accordance 
with part 75 of this chapter for the historical control periods in the 
years two, three, and four years before the year of the control period 
for which the dynamic trading budget is being calculated, provided that 
for the historical control periods in 2022 and 2023, the total reported 
heat input amounts for Nevada and Utah as otherwise determined under 
this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,489,332 mmBtu 
for Nevada and by 1,888,174 mmBtu for Utah, and provided that for the 
historical control periods in 2022, 2023, and 2024, the total reported 
heat input amounts for Arizona and New Mexico as otherwise determined 
under this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,304,261 
mmBtu for Arizona and by 62,445 mmBtu for New Mexico;
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) For a unit listed in the document entitled ``Unit-Specific 
Ozone Season NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Rates for Dynamic Budget 
Calculations'' posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668 (applicable to units located within the borders of States listed 
in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter) or the 
document entitled ``Unit-Specific Ozone Season NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions 
Rates for Dynamic Budget Calculations for Five Additional States'' 
posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402 
(applicable to units located within the borders of States listed in 
Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter), the NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate used in the calculation for the control period shall be 
the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate shown for the unit and control period 
in the applicable document.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) 0.11, for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and 2026; 
or
    (iv) 0.05, for each State for each control period in 2023 and 
thereafter except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *

        Table 6 to Paragraph (e)(3)(i)--State-Level Total Heat Input Used in Calculations of Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2023-2029
                                                                         [mmBtu]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                           2023       2024         2025            2026            2027            2028            2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arizona...........................................  .........  .........     279,048,607     266,122,691     266,122,691     263,590,069     263,590,069
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Iowa..............................................  .........  .........     142,934,126     142,934,126     142,934,126     142,934,126     141,310,860
Kansas............................................  .........  .........     104,571,293     104,571,293     104,571,293     104,571,293     104,571,293
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
New Mexico........................................  .........  .........      82,092,237      79,168,874      79,168,874      79,168,874      79,168,874
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Tennessee.........................................  .........  .........     152,351,271     152,351,271     115,344,086     100,187,179      76,883,950
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec.  97.1011 by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  97.1011  CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to 
existing units.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) * * *

[[Page 12740]]

    (B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, a maximum 
controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section 
shall apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel 
during the historical control period for which the unit's heat input 
was most recently reported, serving a generator with nameplate capacity 
of 100 MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction 
controls, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
    (C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) 
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a 
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this 
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the 
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the 
historical control period for which the unit's heat input was most 
recently reported, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 
100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
    (1) For a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of 
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control 
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
    (2) For State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter 
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in 
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec.  97.1012 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:


Sec.  97.1012  CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to 
new units.

    (a) Allocations from new unit set-asides. For each control period 
in 2021 and thereafter and for the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 units in each State and areas of Indian country within the 
borders of the State (except, for the control periods in 2021 and 2022, 
areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject to 
the State's SIP authority), the Administrator will allocate CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to the CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The first control period for which the State within whose 
borders the unit is located is listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A), 
(B), (C), or (E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) For the control periods in 2024 and thereafter, a maximum 
controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall 
apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during 
the control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100 
MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on 
or before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a 
circulating fluidized bed boiler.
    (C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) 
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a 
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this 
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the 
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the 
control period, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100 
MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
    (1) For a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of 
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control 
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
    (2) For a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter 
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in 
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec.  97.1021 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``period in 2021.'' and adding in its 
place ``periods in 2021 and 2022.'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e);
0
c. In paragraph (f), removing ``July 1, 2024'' and adding in its place 
``July 1, 2026''; and
0
d. Revising paragraph (h).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  97.1021  Recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance 
allocations and auction results.

* * * * *
    (b) By September 5, 2023, the Administrator will record in each 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in 
accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) for the control periods in 2023 and 
2024.
* * * * *
    (d) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed 
in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will record in each 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in 
accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2025.
    (e) By July 1, 2025, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account the 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to the 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in 
accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026, 
unless the State in which the source is located is listed in Sec.  
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter and notifies the Administrator in 
writing by [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], of the State's 
intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April 
1, 2025, meeting the requirements of Sec.  52.38(b)(10)(i) through (iv) 
of this chapter.
    (1) If, by April 1, 2025, the State does not submit to the 
Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record 
by July 1, 2025, in each CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
source's compliance account the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 
3 allowances allocated to the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
units at the source in accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) for the 
control period in 2026.
    (2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and 
the Administrator approves by October 1, 2025, such complete SIP 
revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source as 
provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period 
in 2026.
    (3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and 
the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2025, such complete 
SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to 
the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in 
accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026.
* * * * *
    (h) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed 
in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and by July 1 of each year thereafter, 
the Administrator will

[[Page 12741]]

record in each CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 source's 
compliance account the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 
units at the source in accordance with Sec.  97.1011(a)(2) for the 
control period in the year after the year of the applicable recordation 
deadline under this paragraph (h).
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec.  97.1024 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing ``Sec.  97.526(d) or Sec.  
97.826(d) or (e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec.  97.526 or Sec.  
97.826, in''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  97.1024  Compliance with CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 primary 
emissions limitation; backstop daily NOX emissions rate.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season 
Group 3 units at the source to which the backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions rate applies for the control period under paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section, of any excess over 50 tons for such a unit of the sum 
(converted to tons at a conversion factor of 2,000 lb/ton and rounded 
to the nearest ton), for all calendar days in the control period, of 
any amount by which the unit's NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for a given 
calendar day in pounds exceed the product in pounds of the unit's total 
heat input in mmBtu for that calendar day multiplied by 0.14 lb/mmBtu; 
or
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) For the following States and control periods, the backstop 
daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate shall apply to any CSAPR 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 unit located within the borders of 
the State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the 
control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100 MW 
or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on or 
before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a 
circulating fluidized bed boiler:
    (A) For a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of 
this chapter, the control periods in 2024 and thereafter.
    (B) For a State listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this 
chapter, the control periods in 2026 and thereafter.
    (ii) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of 
this section, for each control period in 2030 and thereafter, the 
backstop daily NO<INF>X</INF> emissions rate shall apply to any other 
CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 unit located with the borders 
of a State except Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, 
Tennessee, or Wisconsin, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel 
during the control period, and serving a generator with nameplate 
capacity of 100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
* * * * *


Sec.  97.1025  [Amended]

0
31. Amend Sec.  97.1025(c)(1) introductory text by adding ``in 2024 or 
thereafter'' after ``control period''.
0
32. Amend Sec.  97.1026 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  97.1026  Banking and conversion; bank recalibration.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowance bank 
ceiling target for the control period in the year of the deadline under 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, calculated as the product, rounded to 
the nearest allowance, of the sum for all States identified for the 
control period in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section of the State 
NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets under Sec.  
97.1010(a) for such States for such control period multiplied by--
* * * * *
    (iii) The States whose trading budgets will be included in the 
calculation of the CSAPR NO<INF>X</INF> Ozone Season Group 3 allowance 
bank ceiling target for each control period are as follows:
    (A) For the control periods in 2024 and 2025, the States listed in 
Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter.
    (B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, the States 
listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and (E) of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
0
33. Amend Sec.  97.1030 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), removing the period and adding in its place 
``; or''; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  97.1030  General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within 
the borders of such State) listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this 
chapter;
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec.  97.1034 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(C), adding ``or'' after the semicolon; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  97.1034  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) The calendar quarter covering May 1, 2025, through June 30, 
2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within the borders of 
such State) listed in Sec.  52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-01064 Filed 2-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>