12666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

uher.thomas@epa.gov. 

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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 allowances 

Group 2 trading program CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program 

Group 3 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 allowances 

Group 3 Trading Program CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

LNB Low-NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12667 

NMED New Mexico Environment 

Department 

Non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NOX 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 

SO2 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 ViolatingMonitor 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 NOX

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 NOX

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 NonEGU 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 NonElectric 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12668 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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

2See 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). 

3See 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); and 87 

FR 19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas). 

4Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 

FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). 

5 88 FR 36654, at 36817. 

6Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 

FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). 

‘‘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. 

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 (NOX) 

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. 

The EPA proposes to implement the 

necessary emissions reductions as 

follows. The proposed FIP requirements 

establish ozone season NOX 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) 

NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading 

Program established in the final Federal 

Good Neighbor Plan Rule.4 For states 

currently covered by the CSAPR NOX

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 NOX

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. 

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 postcombustion 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 NOX

emissions from EGUs and NOX

emissions from non-EGU sources in 

Arizona are interfering with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in other states and that additional costeffective controls for NOX 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 nonEGUs located within Arizona. The 

Federal Good Neighbor Plan established 

NOX 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

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 NOX

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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12669 

will prohibit the emissions from these 

five states identified as interfering with 

maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS 

in other states. 

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 emissionscontrol 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12670 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 costbenefit 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. bThe 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. dThe 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 

PM2.5 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12671 

7 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023). 

8 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 

19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas). 

9 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). 

10See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 

572 U.S. 489, 509–10 (2014). 

11 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

12The 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). 

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 NOX emissions 

reductions are achieved by issuing FIP 

requirements for these five states. 

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

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 

NOX 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 NOX emissions— 

Arizona and New Mexico—will be 

added to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 Trading Program under this 

rule. EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and 

Tennessee will transition from the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program to the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 Trading 

Program. The EPA is establishing a 

control stringency level reflecting 

optimization of existing postcombustion 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

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12672 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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

14 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

15 Id. 

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). 

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

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

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

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 Administrator approves before the 

FIP is promulgated.13

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.’’ 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 industryspecific 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12673 

24National 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. 

25SIP 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. 

26See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909– 

11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

27 88 FR 36656. 

28 88 FR 36654 at 36656. 

29See 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 

Continued 

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 

long.pam@epa.gov to register to speak at 

the virtual hearing. The last day to preregister 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 long.pam@epa.gov 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12674 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

final approval on December 13, 2023. 88 FR 87720 

(December 19, 2023). 

30See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). 

31Cross-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). 

33See 88 FR at 9338; 88 FR at 36671. 

34See 63 FR 57356, 57361 (October 27, 1998). 

35 In addition to CSAPR rulemakings, other 

regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport 

include the ‘‘NOX SIP Call,’’ 63 FR 57356 (October 

27, 1998), and the ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule’’ 

(CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). 

36See 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. 

address the five additional remaining 

SIP submissions and FIP obligations. 

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

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). 

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, statelevel ozone source apportionment 

modeling for 2023 and 2026. The source 

apportionment modeling provides 

contributions to ozone at receptors from 

precursor emissions of anthropogenic 

NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12675 

38See 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. 

39See 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. 

40The 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-andcomment rulemaking.’’ 

41See 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. 

42The 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. 

43See 85 FR 68964, 68981. 

44See 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. 

45Additional details and documentation related 

to the MOVES3 model can be found at https://

www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicleemission-simulator-moves. 

46https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/ 

2016v2-platform. 

47The 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. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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.48 49 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12676 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

50Air 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. 

52March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A. 

53 Id. at A–1. 

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

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 violatingmonitor 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 violatingmonitor receptors, and not to modelingbased 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 modelingbased 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 NOX 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 welldocumented 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12677 

54 Id. 

55While 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. 

56The EPA has not taken any previous proposed 

or final action on New Mexico’s SIP submission. 

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. 

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). 

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 reevaluating 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12678 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

57While 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 ozonetransport receptors identified in the Federal Good 

Neighbor Plan are located. 

for public comment on the EPA’s 

changed basis for action. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12679 

58See 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. 

59See 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)). 

60The 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. 

61See 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). 

62See 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). 

63The Agency often uses the terms maintenance 

receptor and maintenance-only receptor 

interchangeably when discussing maintenance 

receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors. 

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: 

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).60 61

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. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12680 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

64A design value is calculated using the annual 

fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone 

concentration averaged over 3 years. 

65We 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. 

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 violatingmonitor 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 maintenanceonly 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12681 

66As 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 NOX 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. 

67See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909– 

11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 68 88 FR 36654, at 36678. 

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 stateprovided 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

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. 

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12682 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

69 88 FR 36654, at 36684. 

70Letter 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.’’ 

71Arizona’s 2018 SIP submission, 12. 

72 Id. at 13. 

73 Id. 

74 Id. 

75 Id. at 14. 

76 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022). 

77 87 FR 37776, 37782. 

78 87 FR 20036 (April 6, 2022). 

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. 

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

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

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

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 Don ̃ 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

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.79 80 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). 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12683 

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

82As explained in section IV.A.2.c., NMED’s 

Exhibit A acknowledged the EPA’s 2016v3 

modeling results and linkages. 

83EHD’s SIP submission Attachment B, page 7. 

84 Id. at Table 1, page 4. 

85 Id. at page 5. 

86 Id. at page 17. See also 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 

2018). 

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 AlbuquerqueBernalillo 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. 

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 stateto-downwind receptor 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).84 85

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. 

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 mountainplains 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12684 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

87See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2018-05/documents/co_tsd_final_0.pdf. 

88Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule 

Technical Support Document. Table B–3. 2024 

Ozone Season NOX Emissions for States at Different 

Uniform Control Scenarios. 

89NMED’s July 5, 2023, letter to the EPA, at 1. 

90The September 13, 2019, SIP submission 

provided by TDEC was received by the EPA on 

September 17, 2018. 

91On 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. 

92The 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. 

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. 

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 (NOX and 

VOC) from 2005 to 2018. NMED and 

EHD cite New Mexico’s current on-thebooks 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 NOX emissions in New 

Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, and 

Texas from 2002 to 2014. New Mexico 

also provided data exhibiting a decrease 

of VOC and NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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. 

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.90 91 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. 

Tennessee’s submission asserted that 

NOX emissions are considered the 

primary cause of formation of ozone in 

the southeast United States, and 

emphasized a significant reduction in 

NOX emissions reductions from coalfired EGUs and other large NOX sources 

leading to improvements in air quality, 

including reductions attributable to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12685 

93The Tennessee SIP revision specifically cites 

the NOX Budget Trading Program, CAIR, and 

CSAPR. In addition, the Tennessee SIP revision 

discusses Tennessee rule 1200–03–27–.12 (NOX 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. 

94See 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. 

95See ‘‘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. 

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. 98Arizona’s 2018 iSIP submission, 13–14. 

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

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). 

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.96 97 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 violatingmonitor receptors, all located in Texas. 

See 2016v3 AQM TSD, at C–5. 

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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12686 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

99Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, 

Appendix C, available in Docket ID No EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0668. 

100 Id. 

101Arizona’s 2018 iSIP Submission, 13–14. 

102 Id at 14. 

2023, emissions from Arizona 

contribute greater than 1 percent of the 

2015 ozone NAAQS to six maintenanceonly 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. 

TABLE IV.B.1–1—ARIZONA LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA UPDATED 2023 MODELING

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2023 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2023 Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

Arizona 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80690011 ....................... Larimer, Colorado ................... Maintenance-Only ................... 70.9 72.1 0.86 

350130021 ..................... Don ̃a Ana, New Mexico .......... Maintenance-Only ................... 70.8 72.1 1.04 

350130022 ..................... Don ̃a Ana, New Mexico .......... Maintenance-Only ................... 69.7 72.4 1.06 

350151005 ..................... Eddy, New Mexico .................. Maintenance-Only ................... 69.7 74.1 1.34 

350250008 ..................... Lea, New Mexico .................... Maintenance-Only ................... 69.8 72.2 1.66 

481410037 ..................... El Paso, Texas ........................ Maintenance-Only ................... 69.8 71.4 1.69 

Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD. 

TABLE IV.B.1–2—ARIZONA LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA UPDATED 2026 MODELING

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2026 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2026 Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

Arizona 

contribution 

(ppb) 

80690011 ....................... Larimer, Colorado ................... Maintenance-Only ................... 70.0 71.2 0.71 

350130021 ..................... Don ̃a Ana, New Mexico .......... Maintenance-Only ................... 69.9 71.2 0.82 

350130022 ..................... Don ̃a Ana, New Mexico .......... Maintenance-Only ................... 69.0 71.6 0.82 

350151005 ..................... Eddy, New Mexico .................. Maintenance-Only ................... 69.1 73.4 1.06 

350250008 ..................... Lea, New Mexico .................... Maintenance-Only ................... 69.2 71.6 1.34 

Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD. 

TABLE IV.B.1–3—ARIZONA 2023 LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS

Receptor ID Location 

2021 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2022 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2021 

4th high 

(ppb) 

2022 

4th high 

(ppb) 

Arizona 

contribution 

(ppb) 

320030043 ........... Clark, Nevada .................................... 73 75 74 74 0.77 

350011012 ........... Bernalillo, New Mexico ...................... 72 73 76 74 1.62 

350130008 ........... Don ̃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

However, as discussed previously in 

this section, the EPA’s more recent air 

quality analysis for 2023 and 2026 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12687 

103Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 

Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good 

Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR– 

2023–0375. 

104The 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. 105NMED SIP submission at 5. 

106For 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). 

107See, 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). 

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

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

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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12688 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

108See, 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). 

109Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 

Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good 

Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2021–0668. 

110See 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. 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. 

112These 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. 

has previously identified ozone 

transport problems in the West, 

including in Colorado, that are similar 

to those in the east.108

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. 

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. 

TABLE IV.B.2–1—NEW MEXICO LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA’S UPDATED 2016V3 2023 MODELING

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2023 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2023 Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

New Mexico 

contribution 

(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 massbased 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12689 

113As 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. 

neighbor obligations. NMED’s letter 

asserts that certain compliance orders 

entered in recent years would achieve 

an equivalent or greater amount of NOX

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 NOX 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 NOX 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12690 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

114NMED’s July 5, 2023 letter, at 1. 

115The 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 

NOX emissions reductions into their SIP. 116As 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. 

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 NOX 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 NOX 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. 

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 NOX

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 NOX limitations on EGU 

sources in determining the amount of 

NOX emissions that New Mexico’s SIP 

needs to reduce. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12691 

117To 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. 

118Tennessee’s largest impact on any modeledprojected 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). 119Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, 

Appendix C, available in Docket ID No EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2021–0668. 

120The 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. 

121As 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. 

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 violatingmonitor 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 violatingmonitor 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

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

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 data119 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.120 121

TABLE IV.B.3–1—TENNESSEE LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS

Receptor ID Location 

2021 Design 

value 

(ppb) 

2022 Design 

value 

(ppb) 

2021 

4th high 

(ppb) 

2022 

4th high 

(ppb) 

Contribution 

(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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12692 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

122 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 

19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas). 

123See ‘‘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). 

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 violatingmonitor 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. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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

Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance 

2023 Average 

design value 

(ppb) 

2023 Maximum 

design value 

(ppb) 

Iowa 

contribution 

(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

Receptor ID Location 

2021 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2022 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2021 

4th high 

(ppb) 

2022 

4th high 

(ppb) 

Iowa 

contribution 

(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

Receptor ID Location 

2021 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2022 

Design value 

(ppb) 

2021 

4th high 

(ppb) 

2022 

4th high 

(ppb) 

Kansas 

contribution 

(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 maintenanceonly 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-thescience 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12694 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

125See, 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). 

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

128The 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. 

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-thescience 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. 

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-ofthe-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. 

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 errorcorrection 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12695 

129For 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. 

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. 

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

Finally, the EPA affirms in general 

that it does not view all modeling 

results as subject to obligatory (or even 

discretionary) revision under errorcorrection 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12696 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

130 88 FR at 36690–93. 

131Under 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. 

132See 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.’’). 

133With 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. 

134The 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. 

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. 

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

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

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 NOX, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12697 

135https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/ 

2021-10/fy-2022-2026-epa-draft-strategic-plan.pdf. 

136Executive Order 14096 (April 21, 2023): 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/ 

04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nationscommitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all. 

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 regionalscale 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 NOX

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, NOX 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. 

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 § 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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12698 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

137See 88 FR at 36718. 

138As 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 NOX 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 NOXlimited, rather than VOC-limited. Therefore, the 

EPA found that regulation of 

NOX 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 NOX emissions 

relative to VOCs from the final Federal Good 

Neighbor Plan apply in this rulemaking. 

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 NOX 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. 

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 

NOX 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 NOX

control stringency; (2) evaluate potential 

NOX 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 NOX 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. 

For both EGUs and non-EGUs, section 

VI.B. of this document describes the 

available NOX 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 nonEGU 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 NOX emissions control 

strategies at EGUs: (1) fully operating 

existing SCR, including both optimizing 

NOX removal by existing operational 

SCRs and turning on and optimizing 

existing idled SCRs; (2) installing stateof-the-art NOX combustion controls; (3) 

fully operating existing SNCRs, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12699 

139 88 FR 36731. 

140 88 FR 36720–36732. 

141See the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final 

Rule TSD Addendum. 

142 88 FR 36726. 

143 88 FR 36727. 

144No 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. 

145The 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/EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0668-0150. 

including both optimizing NOX 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 

NOX emitting or zero-emitting EGUs 

may occur in response to economic 

factors. As the cost of emitting NOX

increases, it becomes increasingly costeffective for units with lower NOX rates 

to increase generation, while units with 

higher NOX rates reduce generation. 

Because the cost of generation is unitspecific, 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. 

It is equitable and reasonable to 

continue to use the same cost, 

performance, and timelines for EGU 

NOX 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 

NOX 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 

NOX mitigation strategies. 

Under the analysis in the Federal 

Good Neighbor Plan and supported by 

technical information provided in the 

EGU NOX 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

TABLE VI.B.1–1—SUMMARY OF EGU NOX MITIGATION STRATEGIES, REPRESENTATIVE COSTS, TIMELINES, AND

APPLICABILITY

Mitigation strategy 

Representative 

cost 

(2016$) 

Implementation 

timeline 

First ozone season 

available for 

supplemental states 

Unit applicability NOX emissions rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Fully Operating Existing SCR 

(optimizing operating and 

idled SCR).

$1,600/ton ........... <2 months ............ 2025 ............................ Covered fossil-fired units with 

SCR.

Coal steam: 0.08; O/G Steam: 

0.03; Combustion Turbine: 

0.03; Combined Cycle: 

0.012. 

Installing State-Of-The-Art 

Combustion Controls.

$1,600/ton ........... 6 to 8 months ....... 2025 ............................ Covered coal steam units lacking state-of-the-art combustion controls.0.199. 

Fully Operating Existing SNCR 

(optimizing operating and 

idled SNCR).

$1,800/ton ........... <2 months ............ 2025 ............................ Covered fossil-fired units with 

SNCR.

Up to a 25% reduction in 

emissions rate if SNCR 

idled. 

Installing New SNCR ............... $6,700/ton ........... 16 months ............ 2027 ............................ Covered CFB units of any size 

and other coal steam units 

under 100 MW lacking postcombustion NOX controls 144.

Up to a 50% reduction in 

emissions rate for CFB 

units; up to a 25% reduction 

in emissions rate for other 

units. 

Installing New SCR .................. $11,000/ton (coal 

steam); $7,700 

(O/G steam).

36 to 48 months ... 2027 (with phase in 

over 2027 and 

2028).

Covered coal steam units (except CFB) great than 100 

MW; 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.

0.05 for coal steam units; 0.03 

for O/G steam units. 

2. Non-EGUs 

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 nonEGUs that would fully eliminate 

significant contribution from the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12700 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

146See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support 

Document for the Proposed Rule, available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQOAR-2021-0668-0145. 147The 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/EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956. 

148See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support 

Document for the Final Rule, available at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2021-0668-1110. 

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. 

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 NOX SIP Call, we also 

focused on assessing emissions-control 

opportunities by industry (using NAICScode 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 NOX

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 NOX emissions as 

a result, and are projected to continue 

to have relatively high NOX 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

Industry Emissions unit type Applicability requirements 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.Nameplate rating of ≥1000 braking horsepower (bhp). 

Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing ................. Kilns .................................... Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per 

year (tpy) or more of NOX. 

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ........... Reheat Furnaces ................ Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or 

more of NOX. 

Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing .......................... Furnaces ............................ Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or 

more of NOX. 

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; Metal 

Ore Mining; Basic Chemical Manufacturing; Petroleum 

and Coal Products Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and 

Paperboard Mills.

Boilers ................................ Design capacity of ≥100 mmBtu/hr. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12701 

149The 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. 

TABLE VI.B.2–1—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIES, NON-EGU EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, AND APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS— 

Continued 

Industry Emissions unit type Applicability requirements 

Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators ....................... Combustors or Incinerators Design capacity ≥250 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

Industry Emissions unit type Form of proposed 

emissions limits Proposed emissions limits 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............ Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines.

Grams per horsepower per hours (g/ 

hp-hr).

Four Stroke Rich Burn: 1.0 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 Manufacturing Kilns ............................ Pounds per ton (lbs/ 

ton) of clinker.

Long Wet: 4.0 lb/ton; Long 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 Manufacturing.Reheat Furnaces ........ lbs/mmBtu a ................ Test and set limit based on installation of 

Low-NOX Burners. 

Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing ......... Furnaces .................... lbs/ton glass produced Container Glass Furnace: 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 Manufacturing; Metal Ore Mining; Basic Chemical 

Manufacturing; Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills.

Boilers ........................ lbs/mmBtu a ................ Coal: 0.20 lb/mmBtu; Residual Oil: 0.20 lb/ 

mmBtu; Distillate Oil: 0.12 lb/mmBtu; Natural Gas: 0.08 lb/mmBtu. 

Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators ...... Combustors or Incinerators.ppmvd on a 24-hour 

averaging period 

and ppmvd on a 30- 

day averaging period.

110 ppmvd on a 24-hour averaging period; 

105 ppmvd on a 30-day 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 NOX

reduction potential and corresponding 

air quality improvements. The EPA 

evaluated EGU NOX 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

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 * 

State Baseline 

2025 OS NOX

Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of 

technology inclusion 

SCR 

optimization 

SCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades 

SCR/SNCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12702 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

150Available in the docket here: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2021-0668-0956. 

151More information on the control measures 

database can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/ 

economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollutionregulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution. 

TABLE VI.C.1–1—EGU OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS AND REDUCTION POTENTIAL (TONS)—NEAR TERM *—Continued 

State Baseline 

2025 OS NOX

Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of 

technology inclusion 

SCR 

optimization 

SCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades 

SCR/SNCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades 

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

State Baseline 

2026 OS NOX

Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of technology inclusion 

SCR 

optimization 

SCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades 

SCR/SNCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades 

SCR/SNCR 

optimization 

+ combustion 

control 

upgrades + 

SCR/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 NOX

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. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12703 

TABLE VI.C.2–1—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, ASSUMED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

THAT MEET PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS

Industry Emissions unit type Assumed control technologies that meet proposed 

emissions limits 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean Burn) a; SCR (4- 

cycle Lean Burn); NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn). 

Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing ................. Kilns .................................... SNCR. 

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ........... Reheat Furnaces ................ LNB. 

Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing .......................... Furnaces ............................ LNB. 

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ........... Boilers ................................ LNB + FGR (Natural 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 Incinerators ....................... Combustors or Incinerators ANSCR b; LNtm and SNCR b,c. 

aSome 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 (LNTM) 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 * 

Industry/industries Emissions unit type Assumed control technologies that meet 

proposed emissions limits 

Estimated 

number of 

existing 

units per 

assumed 

control 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ... Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.NSCR or Layered Combustion (Reciprocating).........................

Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean 

Burn).

6 

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 * 

Industry/industries Emissions unit type Assumed control technologies that 

meet proposed emissions limits 

Annual costs 

(2016$) 

Ozone 

season 

emissions 

reductions 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural 

Gas.

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine.

Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean 

Burn).

4,309,893 329 

* 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 NOX control 

stringency was appropriate and 

identified an appropriate level of 

uniform NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12704 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

152For 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. 

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 NOX 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 NOX 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 subsections, 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 nonEGUs. 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 NOX control stringency as 

foundational to the identification of 

emissions that significantly contribute 

or interfere with maintenance of the 

ozone NAAQS, in light of the regionalscale, 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 costeffective 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 welldemonstrated 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12705 

153The 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. 

geographic coverage inclusive of the 

states identified in this action. 

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 NonEGU 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

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 NOX

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 overcontrol 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 postcombustion controls and installation of 

state-of-the-art NOX 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 nonEGUs. 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 overcontrol 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12706 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

154The 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. 

to expand the geographic scope of the 

CSAPR NOX 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 unitspecific 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 NOX

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 SCRretrofit 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 NOX 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. 

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 NOX emissions 

and operating data to the EPA under the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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

State Facility ID Facility name Unit ID Unit type 

Estimated 

ozone season 

heat input 

(mmBtu) 

Estimated 

ozone season 

NOX emissions 

rate 

(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 

NOX 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 NOX emissions budgets 

calculated using these methodologies. 

The preset State emissions budgets for 

control periods 2025–2029 are 

presented in Table VII.A.2–1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12708 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

155The 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. 

156The 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. 

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 setaside 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. 

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. 

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 NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12709 

157As 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. 

158As 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. 

does not include the installation of new 

SCR controls.157

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

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed timing of the backstop daily 

NOX 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 NonEGUs 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12710 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonEGU 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 NOX 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 EPAadministered 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12711 

159Under 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). 

160Under 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). 

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 NOX 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 statedetermined 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. 

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 NOX 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 statedetermined 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. 

Deadlines for this type of SIP revision 

would be the same as the deadlines for 

abbreviated SIP revisions. For the SIPbased 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 Trading Program. For a 

transport SIP revision that does not use 

the CSAPR NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12712 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

161Part 70 addresses requirements for State title 

V programs, and Part 71 governs the Federal title 

V program. 

162A 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). 

163Five 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 subregional perspective. The 10 km distance was added 

to this analysis as few to no people were within 5 

km of some affected facilities. 

164The 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. 

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’’)). 

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. 

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 nonEGUs 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 NO2, 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: 

• 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. 

• 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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. 

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

Demographic group 

Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the 

national average 1

5 km 10 km 50 km National 

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 Diploma ................................... 18 16 8 12 

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. 2To 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12714 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

165This 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. 

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

Demographic group 

Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the 

national average 1

5 km 10 km 50 km National 

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. 2To 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.166 167

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 NOX emissions requirements 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 $1,800 per ton of NOX (2016$) in 

2025 and $11,000 per ton of NOX

(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 NOX 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 

Ozone season NOX

(tons) 

Total emissions Change from 

baseline run Baseline Proposal 

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 NOX 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

Industry/Industries Emissions unit type Assumed control technologies that 

meet proposed emissions limits 

Annual costs 

(million 2016$) 

Ozone season 

emissions 

reductions 

(tons) 

Pipeline Transportation of Natural 

Gas.

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine.

Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean 

Burn).

4.3 329 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12716 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

For EGUs, the EPA analyzed ozone 

season NOX 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 PM2.5-attributable 

premature deaths and illnesses by 

multiplying a benefit per ton coefficient 

by the expected State NOX ozone season 

and primary PM2.5, NOX and SO2

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. 

aValues rounded to two significant figures. 

bThe 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) longterm 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 CO2 emissions from EGUs expected 

to occur over 2025–2044 for this 

proposed rule. The EPA estimated the 

dollar value of the CO2-related effects 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12717 

for each year between 2025 and 2044 by 

applying the SC–CO2 estimates to the 

estimated changes in CO2 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 

Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th 

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 PM2.5 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 netbenefits 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 

benefits 

Cost c Net 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12718 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

168The 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. 

169See proposed §§ 52.154(a) (Arizona), 52.840(b) 

(Iowa), 52.882(b) (Kansas), 52.1641 (New Mexico), 

and 52.2240(e) (Tennessee). 

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—Continued 

[Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a

Health benefits Climate 

benefits 

Cost c Net benefits 

3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7% 

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 NOX 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 NOX 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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. 

The general FIP provisions applicable 

to all states covered by this rule as set 

forth in § 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 

NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading 

Program with respect to emissions 

starting in 2025. Provisions would also 

be added repeating the substance of 

§ 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 

§ 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 statedetermined allowance allocations. 

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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12719 

170The provision currently designated as 

§ 97.826(f) would be redesignated as § 97.826(g). 

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 §§ 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 § 97.1010, 

while revisions ending the 

corresponding provisions under the 

Group 2 trading program for control 

periods after 2024 would be made at 

§ 97.810. Revisions to § 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 statedetermined 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 

§ 97.1026(d)(2). 

Finally, the EPA proposes to make 

conforming revisions to cross-references 

necessitated by the other amendments 

already described at § 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 § 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 statespecific subpart of 40 CFR part 52 for 

Arizona at proposed § 52.154(b). 

In addition, each provision in 

§§ 52.40 through 52.46 that either 

repeats the general applicability 

deadline from § 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 crossreferences, 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 crossreferences and grammatical and 

typographical errors, the EPA proposes 

to make the following additional 

technical corrections to the regulatory 

text for EGUs: 

• The backstop daily NOX emissions 

rate provisions at §§ 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. 

• The backstop daily NOX emissions 

rate provisions at § 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. 

• The ‘‘maximum controlled 

baseline’’ language in the allowance 

allocation provisions at 

§§ 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. 

• The secondary emissions limitation 

provisions at § 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 § 97.1006(c)(3)(ii). 

• The provisions to create an initial 

allowance bank for states transitioning 

to the Group 3 trading program under 

the Federal Good Neighbor Plan at 

§ 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 

§ 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for the relevant states, 

not as the potentially different sum of 

the final 2024 variability limits under 

§ 97.1010(e) for the relevant states, 

because the final 2024 variability limit 

values under § 97.1010(e) would not be 

known until after the deadline for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12720 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

171The EPA is proposing to redesignate this 

provision as § 52.45(d)(3)(iv). 

carrying out the bank conversion 

procedure. 

• The provision at 

§ 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 crossreferences and grammatical and 

typographical errors, the EPA proposes 

to make the following additional 

technical corrections to the regulatory 

text for non-EGUs: 

• The definition of ‘‘ozone season’’ 

currently provided as part of the general 

requirements of the non-EGU 

regulations at § 52.40(c)(1) would be 

broken out as a freestanding definition 

and relocated to § 52.40(b). The revision 

would clarify the regulations. 

• The recordkeeping provisions at 

§§ 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 § 52.40(c)(3). The 

revisions would also add crossreferences to the general recordkeeping 

requirements at § 52.40(c)(3) and (f), 

where additional details on 

recordkeeping requirements are 

provided. Relatedly, the recordkeeping 

provisions at § 52.45(e)(2) for low-use 

industrial boilers would be revised to 

correctly cross-reference § 52.40(f) (but 

not § 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. 

• Two types of corrections would be 

made to the reporting provisions at 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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. 

• Several provisions concerning nonreport 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 nonreport submissions throughout the 

Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s non-EGU 

regulations and would clarify the 

regulations. See §§ 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). 

• In the regulations governing 

compliance extension requests at 

§ 52.40(d), the regulations governing 

case-by-case emissions limit requests at 

§ 52.40(e), and the regulations governing 

steel reheat furnace work plan 

submissions at § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 

§ 52.43(d)(4)(iv) (requiring other types of 

final decisions to be made publicly 

available). In the case of § 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 

§ 52.40(d)(6) and (e)(4); see also 

§ 52.40(d)(10) and (e)(8) (requiring other 

types of final decisions to be made 

publicly available). The revisions would 

clarify the regulations. 

• The definition of ‘‘facility’’ in the 

regulations for natural gas pipeline 

engines at § 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. 

• The provisions on testing and 

monitoring requirements for natural gas 

pipeline engines at § 52.43(e) would be 

revised to correctly indicate the terms of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12721 

172The EPA is proposing to redesignate 

§ 52.45(d)(4) as § 52.45(d)(3)(iv). 

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 § 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 § 52.43(e)(3)(iii) would be removed 

and the provision currently designated 

as § 52.43(e)(3)(iv) would be 

redesignated as § 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. 

• The definitions section of the 

regulations for cement kilns at § 52.42(a) 

would be revised by removing a 

definition of ‘‘cement plant’’ because 

the term is not used in the final 

regulations. 

• The applicability provisions of the 

regulations covering steel reheat 

furnaces at § 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-NOX burners. 

The EPA’s intent for the regulations to 

remain in effect for a given affected unit 

after any installation of low-NOX

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-NOX burners 

or alternative low-NOX technologies and 

the requirements for testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure 

compliance with those limits following 

installation. See § 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-NOX

burners. The revision would clarify the 

regulations. 

• The initial notification provisions 

of the regulations covering steel reheat 

furnaces at § 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 lowNOX 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 

§ 52.43(b). 

• The emissions limitations 

provisions for glass manufacturing 

furnaces at § 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 § 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 

§ 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. 

• In the recordkeeping provisions for 

glass manufacturing furnaces at 

§ 52.44(h), a provision concerning 

operating parameters would be 

redesignated from § 52.44(h)(1)(vii)(D) 

to § 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 § 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 

§ 52.44(g)(2) and (3). 

• The provisions of the industrial 

boiler testing and monitoring 

requirements at § 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 

§§ 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. 

• The provisions concerning the 

required annual reports for industrial 

boilers at § 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 

§ 52.45(e), including records of CEMS 

data or operating parameters required 

under § 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 §§ 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 § 52.45(f)(3), 

that separate reporting requirement 

would be eliminated as redundant, and 

the annual report provision would be 

redesignated as § 52.45(f)(3). 

• The definitions section of the 

municipal waste combustor regulations 

at § 52.46(a) would be revised to include 

a definition of ‘‘municipal solid waste’’ 

matching the definition of the same 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12722 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 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. 

• Several provisions of the 

regulations for municipal waste 

combustors at § 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 

§ 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. 

• The provisions on testing and 

monitoring requirements for municipal 

waste combustors at § 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 § 52.46(e)(2)(ii) and (3)(i). 

• The reporting provisions for 

municipal waste combustors at 

§ 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 nonEGU source categories. The EPA 

expressly indicated the intent to require 

excess emissions reports from all nonEGU 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/lawsregulations/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 NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

trading program addressing seasonal 

NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX 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 CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

trading programs addressing sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions, annual NOX

emissions, or seasonal NOX emissions in 

various sets of states, and the Texas SO2

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 NOX 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12723 

information necessary to allocate and 

transfer emissions allowances and the 

submittal of certificates of 

representation and other typically onetime 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 NOX 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 or CSAPR NOX 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 NOX

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 

NOX 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 NOX 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 OIRA_

submission@omb.eop.gov, 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 nonEGU 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 nonEGU industry stationary sources will 

potentially modify or install new 

emissions controls and associated 

monitoring systems to meet the NOX

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12724 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 onetime 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 CO2-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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12725 

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. 

174A 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. 

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 PM2.5 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

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 violatingmonitor 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

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12726 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Amend § 52.38 by: 

■ 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’’; 

■ 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’’; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E); 

■ 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’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(10) 

introductory text; 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), removing 

‘‘2024, of’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘2026, of’’; 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (b)(10)(v)(A) 

and (B); 

■ 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’’; 

■ i. In paragraph (b)(14)(i)(G), removing 

‘‘§ 97.826(f)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 97.826(g)’’; 

■ 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’’; 

■ k. Revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(A); 

■ 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 

■ m. In paragraph (b)(17)(i), removing 

‘‘2024’’ and adding in its place ‘‘2026’’. 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.38 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(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 NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowance allocation provisions 

replacing the provisions in 

§ 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 NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 units and the amount of CSAPR 

NOX 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) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12727 

(A) The provisions of §§ 97.526(c), 

97.826(c), and 97.1026(c) of this chapter 

(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 1 allowances, 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowances, and CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 allowances between 

certain Allowance Management System 

accounts under common control); 

* * * * * 

§ 52.39 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 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’’. 

■ 4. Amend § 52.40 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing 

‘‘paragraph (b)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (c)(1)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b): 

■ i. In the introductory text, removing 

the section symbol before ‘‘52.46’’; 

■ ii. Revising the definitions ‘‘Existing 

affected unit’’ and ‘‘New affected unit’’; 

and 

■ iii. Adding the definition ‘‘Ozone 

season’’ in alphabetical order; 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1), removing 

‘‘(defined as May 1 through September 

30 of a calendar year)’’; 

■ d. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) and adding paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(1); 

■ 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 

§ 52.40(c)(2)’’; 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and 

(d)(4) through (8) and paragraph (d)(9) 

introductory text; 

■ h. In paragraph (d)(9)(ii), removing 

‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘CEDRI or an’’; 

■ i. Revising paragraphs (d)(10) and (11) 

and (e)(1); 

■ 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’’; 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) through 

(6) and paragraph (e)(7) introductory 

text; 

■ l. In paragraph (e)(7)(ii), removing 

‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘CEDRI or an’’; 

■ m. Revising paragraph (e)(8); 

■ n. In paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing 

‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘CEDRI or an’’; and 

■ o. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(D) 

and (g)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 52.41, § 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, 

or § 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 § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 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 § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12728 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 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 caseby-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 § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 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 caseby-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 

§ 52.41, § 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, 

or § 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 oaqpscbi@

epa.gov, 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12729 

to report data required by § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 52.46. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 52.41 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. In the definition for ‘‘Cap’’, 

removing ‘‘sum each’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘sum of each’’; 

■ ii. In the definition for ‘‘Facility’’, 

removing ‘‘20 states identified in 

§ 52.40(b)(2)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘set of states identified in § 52.40(c)’’; 

and 

■ iii. In the definition for ‘‘Rich burn’’, 

removing ‘‘affected unit where’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘affected units 

where’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text, paragraph (b)(1)(ii), 

and paragraph (c) introductory text; 

■ c. In paragraph (d) introductory text, 

removing ‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘CEDRI or an’’; 

■ d. Redesignating the second paragraph 

(d)(1)(iv) as paragraph (d)(1)(v); 

■ e. In paragraph (d)(4), removing ‘‘an 

affected units’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘an affected unit’’; 

■ f. Removing paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and 

redesignating paragraph (e)(3)(iv) as 

paragraph (e)(3)(iii); 

■ g. In paragraph (e)(5) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘owner of operator’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘owner or operator’’; 

■ h. Revising paragraph (e)(6) and 

paragraph (f) introductory text; 

■ i. In paragraph (f)(1), removing 

‘‘paragraph (e)(2)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (e)(3)’’; 

■ j. In paragraph (f)(2), removing 

‘‘paragraph (e)(3)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (e)(4)’’; and 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), 

paragraph (g)(3) introductory text, and 

paragraph (g)(3)(i). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 nonemergency 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 nonemergency 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 NOX

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 § 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 § 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; 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 52.42 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing the 

definition ‘‘Cement plant’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) and 

paragraph (c) introductory text; 

■ c. In equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1): 

■ i. In the definition for ‘‘P’’, removing 

‘‘Time’’ and adding in its place ‘‘time’’; 

and 

■ ii. In the definition for ‘‘n’’, removing 

‘‘n = Number’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘N = Number’’; 

■ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)’’; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12730 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ e. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), removing 

‘‘paragraph (e)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (f)’’; and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (e) introductory 

text, paragraphs (f)(1) through (3), and 

paragraph (g)(2) introductory text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 NOX on or after August 

4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State 

listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing 

cement kiln with a potential to emit of 

100 tons per year or more of NOX 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 NOX. 

(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 § 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 § 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 § 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 NOX

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 § 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 § 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 NOX as of August 4, 2023, for 

a unit in a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), 

or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 

DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed 

in § 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: 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 52.43 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(1), 

paragraph (d)(4) introductory text, and 

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii); 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘via the CEDRI or 

analogous’’ and adding in its place ‘‘in 

writing or via an’’; 

■ 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’’; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv); 

■ 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’’; 

■ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii), removing ‘‘a 

site-specific indicator’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘site-specific indicator ranges’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (e)(3)(iv), removing 

‘‘paragraph (f)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (g)’’; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (f) introductory 

text; 

■ j. In paragraph (f)(8), removing 

‘‘paragraph (d)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (e)’’; and 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(4) and paragraph (h)(2) introductory 

text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 § 52.40(c)(2), including 

Indian country located within the 

borders of any such State(s), does not 

have low-NOX burners installed, and 

directly emits or has the potential to 

emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX

on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in 

a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing reheat 

furnace without low-NOX burners 

installed and with a potential to emit of 

100 tons per year or more of NOX 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-NOX burners or becomes subject to 

a physical or operational limitation that 

lowers its potential to emit below 100 

tons per year of NOX. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator of each 

affected unit must submit a work plan 

for each affected unit by August 5, 2024, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12731 

for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [ONE YEAR AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for 

a unit in a State listed in 

§ 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-NOX

burner or alternative low NOX

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 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State 

listed in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 NOX

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 § 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 § 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-NOX burners installed and that 

emits or has a potential to emit 100 tons 

per year or more of NOX as of August 

4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State 

listed in § 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 § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 

DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed 

in § 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: 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 52.44 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. In the definition for ‘‘Affected 

units’’, removing ‘‘Affected units 

means’’ and adding ‘‘Affected unit 

means’’; and 

■ ii. Revising the definition ‘‘Wool 

fiberglass’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) and 

paragraph (c) introductory text; 

■ 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’’; 

■ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)’’; 

■ e. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), removing 

‘‘a’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (g)(3)(iv), removing 

‘‘paragraph (h)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘paragraph (i)’’; 

■ g. Revising paragraph (h)(1) 

introductory text; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12732 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ 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; 

■ i. In paragraph (h)(2), adding a second 

sentence; 

■ j. In paragraph (h)(3), adding a third 

sentence; and 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) through 

(3) and paragraph (j)(2) introductory 

text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 NOX on or after August 4, 2023, 

for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State 

listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing 

glass manufacturing furnace with a 

potential to emit of 100 tons per year or 

more of NOX 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 NOX. 

(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 

§ 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 § 52.40(c)(3) and (f): 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * The records shall be 

maintained consistent with the 

requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f). 

(3) * * * The records shall be 

maintained consistent with the 

requirements of § 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 § 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 NOX

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 § 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 § 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 NOX as of August 4, 2023, for 

a unit in a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), 

or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 

for a unit in a State listed in 

§ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 

DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed 

in § 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: 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 52.45 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), in the definition 

for ‘‘Maximum heat input capacity’’, 

removing the second ‘‘means’’ before 

‘‘the ability’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘paragraph (f)(2)’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (e)(2) 

and (f)(3)’’; 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) and 

paragraph (c) introductory text; 

■ 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 § 52.40(c)(2)’’; 

■ g. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing 

‘‘emission rate’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘emissions rate’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘mmBTU/hr’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘mmBtu/hr’’; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii); 

■ j. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), removing 

‘‘coal and span value’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘coal and a span value’’; 

■ k. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) and 

paragraph (d)(3) introductory text; 

■ l. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing 

‘‘affected units operates’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘affected unit operates’’; 

■ m. In paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), 

removing ‘‘emission rates’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘emissions rates’’; 

■ n. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(iv); 

■ o. Removing paragraph (d)(4); 

■ p. Revising paragraph (e)(1) 

introductory text, paragraph (e)(2) 

introductory text, and paragraphs 

(e)(2)(v) and (f)(1) through (3); and 

■ q. Removing paragraph (f)(4). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12733 

§ 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 

§ 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 lowuse 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 § 52.40(c)(2): 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The 1-hour average NOX

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 NOX until after the initial 

performance test has been conducted. If 

you demonstrate during the 

performance test that emissions of NOX

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 NOX. 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 NOX 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 NOX emissions via the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section or you must monitor NOX

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 NOX

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 

§ 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 § 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. 

■ 10. Amend § 52.46 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a): 

■ i. Removing the definitions ‘‘mass 

burn refractory waste combustor’’, 

‘‘mass burn rotary waterwall municipal 

waste combustor’’, and ‘‘mass burn 

waterwall municipal waste combustor’’; 

■ ii. Adding the definition ‘‘Municipal 

solid waste or MSW’’ in alphabetical 

order; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12734 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ 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’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (b), removing ‘‘and’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ d. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), 

removing ‘‘at 7 percent oxygen’’; 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(1); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(2); 

■ g. In paragraph (d)(5), removing 

‘‘owner and operator’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘owner or operator’’; 

■ h. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory 

text, removing ‘‘NOX are’’ and adding in 

its palace ‘‘NOX emissions are’’; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(vi) 

introductory text and paragraphs 

(e)(1)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vi)(B), and (e)(2)(vii); 

■ j. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), removing 

‘‘paragraph (e)(2)(iv)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘paragraph (e)(2)(vi)’’; 

■ k. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(3); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (f) introductory 

text and paragraph (f)(3); 

■ m. In paragraph (f)(4), removing 

‘‘occurrence that’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘occurrence where’’; 

■ n. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2); 

and 

■ o. Adding paragraph (g)(3). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 municipaltype 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 § 52.40(c)(2), using 

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 § 52.40(c)(3) and (f): 

* * * * * 

(3) Identification of the calendar dates 

and times (hours) for which valid 

hourly NOX 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 § 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 NOX

emissions rate or calculated 30-day 

rolling average NOX 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 § 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 § 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 

■ 11. Add § 52.154 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 NOX 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 

§ 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those 

sources and units, except to the extent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 § 52.40 and § 52.41, 

§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or 

§ 52.46 must comply with such 

requirements with regard to emissions 

occurring in 2027 and each subsequent 

year. 

Subpart Q—Iowa 

■ 12. Amend § 52.840 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(2): 

■ i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each 

subsequent year.’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and 

■ ii. Removing the second and third 

sentences; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 NOX 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 

§ 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 § 97.826(c) of this 

chapter (concerning the transfer of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowances between certain accounts 

under common control) and the 

provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter 

(concerning the conversion of amounts 

of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 allowances allocated for control 

periods before 2025 to different amounts 

of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

allowances) shall continue to apply. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 13. Amend § 52.882 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1): 

■ i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each 

subsequent year.’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and 

■ ii. Removing the second and third 

sentences; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 NOX 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 

§ 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 NOX 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 NOX 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12736 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, after 

2024 the provisions of § 97.826(c) of this 

chapter (concerning the transfer of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowances between certain accounts 

under common control) and the 

provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter 

(concerning the conversion of amounts 

of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 allowances allocated for control 

periods before 2025 to different amounts 

of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

allowances) shall continue to apply. 

Subpart GG—New Mexico 

■ 14. Add § 52.1641 to subpart GG to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 NOX 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 

§ 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 

■ 15. Amend § 52.2240 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (e)(2): 

■ i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each 

subsequent year.’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and 

■ ii. Removing the second sentence; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(3); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (5). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 NOX 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 § 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 § 97.826(c) of this 

chapter (concerning the transfer of 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowances between certain accounts 

under common control) and the 

provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter 

(concerning the conversion of amounts 

of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 allowances allocated for control 

periods before 2025 to different amounts 

of CSAPR NOX 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 

■ 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 

§ 97.502 [Amended] 

■ 17. Amend § 97.502 in the definition 

for ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 

3 allowance’’ by removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d) 

or (e), or’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or’’. 

■ 18. Amend § 97.526 by adding 

paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 97.826(f)(1), upon any determination 

that would otherwise result in the initial 

recordation of a given number of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances 

in the compliance account for a source 

in a State listed in § 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 NOX Ozone Season Group 1 

allowances but instead will allocate and 

record in such account an amount of 

CSAPR NOX 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 NOX 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 § 97.826(f)(1)(ii). 

(e) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12737 

(4) After the Administrator has carried 

out the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 

§ 97.826(f)(1), the owner or operator of 

a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 

source in a State listed in 

§ 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 NOX

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 NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances for the control 

period in 2025 (or any later control 

period for which the allowance transfer 

deadline defined in § 97.1002 has 

passed) computed as the quotient, 

rounded up to the nearest allowance, of 

such given number of CSAPR NOX

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 

§ 97.826(f)(1)(ii). 

Subpart EEEEE—CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 Trading Program 

§ 97.802 [Amended] 

■ 19. Amend § 97.802 by: 

■ a. In the definition for ‘‘Allocate or 

allocation’’, removing ‘‘§§ 97.526(d), 

97.826(d), and 97.1026(e), and’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§§ 97.526 and 

97.1026, and’’; 

■ b. In the definition for ‘‘Common 

designated representative’s assurance 

level’’, paragraph (2), removing 

‘‘§ 97.526(d), § 97.826(d), or 

§ 97.1026(e).’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 97.526, § 97.826, or § 97.1026.’’; and 

■ c. In the definition for ‘‘CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 allowance’’, 

removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d) or (e), or’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or 

(f), or’’. 

§ 97.810 [Amended] 

■ 20. Amend § 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’’. 

§ 97.811 [Amended] 

■ 21. Amend § 97.811(d) heading by 

adding ‘‘Original’’ before ‘‘Group 2 

allowances’’. 

§ 97.824 [Amended] 

■ 22. Amend § 97.824(c)(2)(ii) by 

removing ‘‘§ 97.526(d), § 97.826(d), or 

§ 97.1026(e), in’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘§ 97.526, § 97.826, or § 97.1026, in’’. 

■ 23. Amend § 97.826 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as 

paragraph (g) and adding a new 

paragraph (f); 

■ c. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) 

introductory text, removing ‘‘this 

paragraph (f)’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘this paragraph (g)’’; 

■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(g)(1)(i), removing ‘‘paragraph (f)(1)(ii)’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii)’’; and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (g)(3). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for all 

States listed in § 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 § 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 NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

allowance transfers submitted under 

§ 97.822 and, before resuming 

acceptance of such transfers, will take 

the following actions with regard to 

every compliance account for a CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Group 2 source in a 

State listed in § 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 § 97.1010(a)(2)(i) 

for all States listed in § 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Original Group 2 allowances in 

the compliance account for a source in 

a State listed in § 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 NOX Ozone Season Original 

Group 2 allowances but instead will 

allocate and record in such account an 

amount of CSAPR NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 source in a State 

listed in § 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 NOX 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 NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

allowances for the control period in 

2025 (or any later control period for 

which the allowance transfer deadline 

defined in § 97.1002 has passed) 

computed as the quotient, rounded up 

to the nearest allowance, of such given 

number of CSAPR NOX 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 

§ 97.1002 [Amended] 

■ 24. Amend § 97.1002 by: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

■ a. In the definition for ‘‘Allocate or 

allocation’’, removing ‘‘§§ 97.526(d) and 

97.826(d) and (e), and’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘§§ 97.526 and 97.826, and’’; 

■ b. In the definition for ‘‘Common 

designated representative’s assurance 

level’’, paragraph (2), removing 

‘‘§ 97.526(d) or § 97.826(d) or (e).’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.526 or 

§ 97.826.’’; and 

■ c. In the definition for ‘‘CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 allowance’’, 

removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d) or (e), or’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or 

(f), or’’. 

■ 25. Amend § 97.1006 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B); 

■ 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)’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), removing 

the semicolon and adding in its place a 

period. 

■ d. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B), removing 

‘‘; or’’ and adding in its place a period. 

■ e. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D); and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 97.1006 Standard requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR 

NOX 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 NOX

emissions on any calendar day of the 

control period exceeding the NOX

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 NOX

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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter. 

(ii) A CSAPR NOX 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Amend § 97.1010 by: 

■ 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; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) 

and (a)(4)(iii)(A); 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B), adding 

‘‘applicable’’ before ‘‘document 

referenced’’; 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and 

(iv); and 

■ 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: 

§ 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] 

State 2021 2022 

Portion of 2023 

control period before 

August 4, 2023, 

before prorating 

Portion of 2023 

control period on and 

after August 4, 2023, 

before prorating 

2024 2025 

*******

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12739 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)(i)—PRESET TRADING BUDGETS BY CONTROL PERIOD, 2026–2029—Continued 

[Tons] 

State 2026 2027 2028 2029 

*******

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 

NOX 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 § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) 

through (C) of this chapter) or the 

document entitled ‘‘Unit-Specific Ozone 

Season NOX 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 § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of 

this chapter), the NOX emissions rate 

used in the calculation for the control 

period shall be the NOX 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 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 27. Amend § 97.1011 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) to read 

as follows: 

§ 97.1011 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowance allocations to existing 

units. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(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 coalderived 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 coalderived 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 

§ 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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter 

except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or 

Tennessee, the control periods in 2028 

and thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Amend § 97.1012 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii)(B) and 

(C) to read as follows: 

§ 97.1012 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowance allocations to new units. 

(a) Allocations from new unit setasides. For each control period in 2021 

and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX

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 NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances to the CSAPR NOX

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 

§ 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 coalderived 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 coalderived 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 

§ 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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter 

except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or 

Tennessee, the control periods in 2028 

and thereafter. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Amend § 97.1021 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing ‘‘period 

in 2021.’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘periods in 2021 and 2022.’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e); 

■ c. In paragraph (f), removing ‘‘July 1, 

2024’’ and adding in its place ‘‘July 1, 

2026’’; and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (h). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

source’s compliance account the CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances 

allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 units at the source in 

accordance with § 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 

§ 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances allocated to the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

units at the source in accordance with 

§ 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 

2025. 

(e) By July 1, 2025, the Administrator 

will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances allocated to the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

units at the source in accordance with 

§ 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 

2026, unless the State in which the 

source is located is listed in 

§ 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 § 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances allocated to the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

units at the source in accordance with 

§ 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances allocated to the 

CSAPR NOX 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 NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 source’s 

compliance account the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 3 allowances 

allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 units at the source in 

accordance with § 97.1011(a)(1) for the 

control period in 2026. 

* * * * * 

(h) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources 

located within a State listed in 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules 12741 

record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 source’s compliance 

account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 3 allowances allocated to the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 

units at the source in accordance with 

§ 97.1011(a)(2) for the control period in 

the year after the year of the applicable 

recordation deadline under this 

paragraph (h). 

* * * * * 

■ 30. Amend § 97.1024 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and 

(b)(3)(i) and (ii); and 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing 

‘‘§ 97.526(d) or § 97.826(d) or (e), in’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.526 or 

§ 97.826, in’’. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 

NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the 

source to which the backstop daily NOX

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 NOX

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 NOX

emissions rate shall apply to any CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located 

within the borders of the State, 

combusting any coal or solid coalderived 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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this 

chapter, the control periods in 2024 and 

thereafter. 

(B) For a State listed in 

§ 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 NOX

emissions rate shall apply to any other 

CSAPR NOX 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 97.1025 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend § 97.1025(c)(1) 

introductory text by adding ‘‘in 2024 or 

thereafter’’ after ‘‘control period’’. 

■ 32. Amend § 97.1026 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) 

introductory text; and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 97.1026 Banking and conversion; bank 

recalibration. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The CSAPR NOX 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 NOX Ozone 

Season Group 3 trading budgets under 

§ 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 NOX 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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this 

chapter. 

(B) For the control periods in 2026 

and thereafter, the States listed in 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and (E) 

of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Amend § 97.1030 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing 

‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), removing 

the period and adding in its place ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Amend § 97.1034 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), removing 

‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(C), adding 

‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3