Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45481 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(49) Sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 12/15/15 09/29/17 and [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) prong 3, (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA–R07–OAR– 

2017–0517; FRL–XXXX–Region 7.] 

[FR Doc. 2017–20829 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0598; FRL–9968–46– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT16 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter: Revision of Federal 

Implementation Plan Requirements for 

Texas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing withdrawal 

of the federal implementation plan (FIP) 

provisions that require affected 

electricity generating units (EGUs) in 

Texas to participate in Phase 2 of the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

trading programs for annual emissions 

of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). Withdrawal of the FIP 

requirements is intended to address a 

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) remanding the CSAPR Phase 2 

SO2 budget for Texas to the EPA for 

reconsideration. With this action, the 

EPA is also determining that, following 

withdrawal of the FIP requirements, 

sources in Texas do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with regard to the 1997 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). Accordingly, we are also 

determining that the EPA has no 

obligation to issue new FIP 

requirements for Texas sources to 

address transported PM2.5 pollution 

under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

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

NAAQS. Finally, the EPA is also 

affirming the continued validity of the 

Agency’s 2012 determination that 

participation in CSAPR meets the 

Regional Haze Rule’s criteria for an 

alternative to the application of sourcespecific best available retrofit 

technology (BART). The EPA has 

determined that changes to CSAPR’s 

geographic scope resulting from the 

actions EPA has taken or expects to take 

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

do not affect the continued validity of 

participation in CSAPR as a BART 

alternative, because the changes in 

geographic scope would not have 

adversely affected the results of the air 

quality modeling analysis upon which 

the EPA based the 2012 determination. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 29, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2016–0598. All 

documents in the docket are listed and 

publicly available at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions about the withdrawal of 

CSAPR FIP requirements for Texas 

EGUs should be directed to David 

Lifland, Clean Air Markets Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, MC 

6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9151; email address: 

lifland.david@epa.gov. Questions about 

the sensitivity analysis regarding 

CSAPR participation as a BART 

alternative should be directed to 

Melinda Beaver, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 109 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C539– 

04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 

telephone number: (919) 541–1062; 

email address: beaver.melinda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Entities regulated under CSAPR 

are fossil fuel-fired boilers and 

stationary combustion turbines that 

serve generators producing electricity 

for sale, including combined cycle units 

and units operating as part of systems 

that cogenerate electricity and other 

useful energy output. Regulated 

categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS * code Examples of potentially regulated industries 

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

* North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility is affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability provisions in 40 CFR 

97.404 and 97.704. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

CSAPR to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

II. Background 

A. History and Summary of CSAPR 

B. CSAPR Participation as a BART 

Alternative 

III. Withdrawal of CSAPR FIP Requirements 

Related to Texas’ Transport Obligations 

With Regard to the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS 

A. Summary 

B. Adequacy of Rationale for Finding No 

Remaining Transport Obligation 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45482 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). 

2Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions 

Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and 

Federal Implementation Plans, 77 FR 33642 (June 

7, 2012). 

3CSAPR was amended three times in 2011 and 

2012 to add five states to the seasonal NOX program 

and to increase certain state budgets. 76 FR 80760 

(December 27, 2011); 77 FR 10324 (February 21, 

2012); 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012). The CSAPRbetter-than-BART final rule reflected consideration 

of these changes to CSAPR. 

4EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME 

Homer City II), 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 

The court also remanded the Phase 2 SO2 budgets 

for three other states and the Phase 2 seasonal NOX

budgets for eleven states, including Texas. Id. 

5 Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: 

Revision of Federal Implementation Plan 

Requirements for Texas, Proposed Rule, 81 FR 

78954 (November 10, 2016). 

6With regard to each of the other remanded 

budgets, the EPA either has already withdrawn or 

expects to withdraw the FIP provisions requiring 

the EGUs in the affected states to participate in the 

corresponding CSAPR federal trading programs in 

Phase 2 through other actions, as discussed in 

section III below. 

7 In addition to this action, the full set of actions 

being taken to respond to the remand includes the 

2016 CSAPR Update withdrawing the remanded 

seasonal NOX budgets for eleven states and 

establishing new seasonal NOX budgets to address 

a more recent ozone NAAQS for eight of those 

states, the action approving Alabama’s SIP revision 

establishing state CSAPR trading programs for SO2

and annual NOX to replace the corresponding 

federal CSAPR trading programs, and the expected 

actions to approve proposed SIP revisions for 

Georgia and South Carolina comparable to 

Alabama’s SIP revision (see notes 14, 53, and 57 

below). These additional actions are described in 

more detail in sections II.A and III.D below. 

C. Responsiveness to the D.C. Circuit’s 

Remand Instructions 

D. Consistency of Responses To Remand 

Across States 

E. Consistency of Consideration of D.C. 

Circuit’s Holding Across States 

F. Potential Use of Texas FIP Budgets To 

Address a Different PM2.5 NAAQS 

IV. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding CSAPR 

Participation as a BART Alternative 

A. Summary 

B. Continued CSAPR Participation by 

Georgia and South Carolina 

C. Appropriateness of Continued Reliance 

on Original CSAPR-Better-than-BART 

Analysis 

D. Possible Changes in the Geographic 

Distribution of Emissions 

E. Validity of 2012 Analytic Demonstration 

Prior to CSAPR Changes 

V. Description of Amendments to Regulatory 

Text 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act 

M. Judicial Review and Determinations 

Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d) 

I. Overview 

The EPA promulgated CSAPR in 2011 

in order to address the obligations of 

states—and of the EPA when states have 

not met their obligations—under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air 

pollution contributing significantly to 

nonattainment in, or interfering with 

maintenance by, any other state with 

regard to several NAAQS, including the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.1 To address 

Texas’ transport obligation under CAA 

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

this NAAQS, CSAPR established FIP 

requirements for affected EGUs in 

Texas, including statewide emissions 

budgets that apply to the EGUs’ 

collective annual emissions of SO2 and 

NOX. 

In 2012, the EPA promulgated an 

amendment to the Regional Haze Rule 

allowing a state whose EGUs participate 

in one of the CSAPR trading programs 

for a given pollutant to rely on its 

sources’ participation in CSAPR as an 

alternative to source-specific BART 

requirements—the so-called CSAPRbetter-than-BART rule, codified at 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4).2 This rule relied on a 

regional analytic demonstration that 

included an air quality modeling 

analysis comparing the projected 

visibility impacts of CSAPR 

implementation and BART 

implementation. To project emissions 

under CSAPR, the EPA assumed that the 

geographic scope and state emissions 

budgets for CSAPR would be 

implemented as finalized and amended 

in 2011 and 2012.3

In July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued 

a decision on a range of challenges to 

CSAPR in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II), 

denying most claims but remanding 

several CSAPR emissions budgets to the 

EPA for reconsideration, including the 

Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas.4 Because 

the remand created the potential for 

changes in the geographic scope and 

stringency of CSAPR as evaluated for 

purposes of the 2012 comparison to 

BART implementation, the EPA 

recognizes that how the Agency 

addresses the remand could raise 

questions as to whether states and the 

EPA should continue to rely on the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule. 

The EPA issued a proposal to address 

the remand of the Texas Phase 2 SO2

budget and to resolve any questions 

about continued reliance on the CSAPRbetter-than-BART rule on November 3, 

2016, and solicited comment on the 

proposal.5 Four commenters provided 

substantive comments, and this final 

rule takes those comments into 

consideration. The Agency’s responses 

to the principal comments are provided 

below. The remaining comments are 

addressed in the Response to Comments 

document available in the docket for 

this action. 

In this final action, as proposed, the 

EPA is withdrawing the FIP provisions 

requiring Texas EGUs to participate in 

the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program during Phase 2 of these 

programs, which began with 2017 

emissions.6 Removal of Texas EGUs 

from Phase 2 of these CSAPR trading 

programs renders it necessary to 

evaluate whether EPA should use other 

means to address any remaining 

transport obligation for Texas under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. However, the EPA is finalizing 

its proposed determination that Texas 

does not have any such remaining 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS transport 

obligation as of the beginning of Phase 

2 of the CSAPR trading programs for 

SO2 and annual NOX. Accordingly, the 

EPA is also determining that the Agency 

has no obligation to issue new FIP 

requirements for Texas sources to 

address transported PM2.5 pollution 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with regard to this NAAQS. 

Also in this action, the EPA is 

concluding, based on consideration of 

the sensitivity analysis included in the 

proposal and additional analysis 

included in this final action, that the 

2012 analytic demonstration supporting 

the conclusion that CSAPR participation 

qualifies as a BART alternative is not 

adversely affected by the actions being 

taken to respond to the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of CSAPR Phase 2 budgets.7 As 

a result, no revisions are needed to the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule. 

At the same time, however, because 

Texas EGUs will no longer participate in 

a CSAPR SO2 trading program, Texas 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45483 

8The EPA notes that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), 

CSAPR implementation is available as a NOX BART 

alternative for a state whose EGUs are subject to 

CSAPR requirements for either annual NOX or 

seasonal NOX emissions. See 77 FR at 33652. Texas 

EGUs continue to participate in a CSAPR trading 

program for seasonal NOX. In a separate proposed 

action, the EPA has proposed to address NOX BART 

for Texas EGUs through reliance on participation in 

CSAPR as a NOX BART alternative. 82 FR 917 

(January 4, 2017). 

9 5 U.S.C. 553(d). 

10See generally 76 FR 48208. 11E.g., 40 CFR 52.39(i). 12E.g., 40 CFR 52.39(j). 13EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138. 14Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update), 81 FR 74504, 

74576 (October 26, 2016). 

15 Id. at 74524. 

16North Carolina EGUs remain subject to FIP 

provisions requiring participation in a CSAPR 

trading program for annual NOX emissions. The 

EPA’s expectation that South Carolina EGUs will 

continue to participate in a CSAPR program for 

annual NOX emissions is based on South Carolina’s 

submission of a SIP revision that includes such 

requirements, as discussed in sections III and V 

below. 

17For discussion of the EPA’s response to the 

remand of the Florida seasonal NOX budget, and the 

assessment of the implications of that response for 

the CSAPR-better-than-BART analytical 

demonstration, see 81 FR at 78962. 

will no longer be eligible to rely on 

CSAPR participation as an alternative to 

the application of source-specific SO2

BART for its BART-eligible EGUs under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). That obligation and 

any other remaining regional haze 

obligations for Texas are not addressed 

in this action and will need to be 

addressed through other actions as 

appropriate.8

This final rule is effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. As discussed in 

section VI.L below, the EPA is issuing 

this rule under CAA section 307(d). 

While Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) section 553(d)9 generally 

provides that rules may not take effect 

earlier than 30 days after they are 

published in the Federal Register, CAA 

section 307(d)(1) clarifies that ‘‘[t]he 

provisions of [APA] section 553 . . . 

shall not, except as expressly provided 

in this section, apply to actions to 

which this subsection applies.’’ Thus, 

APA section 553(d) does not apply to 

this rule. Nevertheless, in making this 

rule effective immediately upon 

publication, the EPA has considered the 

purposes underlying APA section 

553(d). The primary purpose of the 

prescribed 30-day waiting period is to 

give affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

a final rule takes effect. This rule does 

not impose any new regulatory 

requirements and therefore does not 

necessitate time for affected sources to 

adjust their behavior or otherwise 

prepare for implementation. Further, 

APA section 553(d) expressly allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication for a rule that ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction.’’ This rule relieves Texas 

EGUs of certain FIP requirements that 

would otherwise apply. Consequently, 

making this rule effective immediately 

upon publication is consistent with the 

purposes of APA section 553(d). 

II. Background 

A. History and Summary of CSAPR 

The EPA initially promulgated 

CSAPR in 2011 to address the 

obligations of states—and of the EPA 

when states have not met their 

obligations—under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provision, to prohibit 

transported air pollution contributing 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfering with maintenance by, any 

other state with regard to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS.10 To reduce transported 

PM2.5 pollution, CSAPR sets limits on 

annual emissions of NOX and SO2 as 

precursors to PM2.5. To reduce 

transported ozone pollution during the 

May-September ozone season, CSAPR 

sets limits on seasonal emissions of NOX

as a precursor to ozone. The CSAPR 

requirements were initially established 

in FIPs, but states can voluntarily 

replace the CSAPR FIPs with CSAPR 

state implementation plans (SIPs) that 

include equally stringent budgets.11

Upon approval of such a CSAPR SIP, 

the corresponding CSAPR FIP is 

automatically withdrawn.12

As explained in the proposal, a 

number of petitioners challenged 

CSAPR, and in 2015 the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision remanding the Phase 

2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and 

the Phase 2 seasonal NOX budgets for 

eleven states to the EPA for 

reconsideration.13 In response to the 

remand of the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 

budgets, the EPA has engaged the 

affected states to determine appropriate 

next steps to address the decision with 

regard to each state. As discussed in the 

proposal and also in section III below, 

the EPA expects that EGUs in Alabama, 

Georgia, and South Carolina will 

continue to participate in CSAPR 

trading programs for SO2 and annual 

NOX pursuant to approved SIP revisions 

(with equally stringent emissions 

budgets), making Texas the only state 

whose EGUs will no longer participate 

in these programs to reduce transported 

PM2.5 pollution as a result of actions 

taken to address the remand. 

Also as explained in the proposal, in 

the CSAPR Update rule issued in 2016, 

the EPA responded to the remand of 

eleven states’ original Phase 2 seasonal 

NOX budgets (which had been 

established to address transport 

obligations with regard to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS) by withdrawing 

the FIP provisions requiring EGUs to 

comply with those budgets for 

emissions after 2016.14 The EPA 

determined that none of those eleven 

states has a remaining transport 

obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, but for eight of 

those states, including Texas, the 

CSAPR Update rule also established 

new budgets to address transport 

obligations with regard to the more 

stringent 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.15

EGUs in the three states with remanded 

Phase 2 seasonal NOX budgets for which 

the EPA did not establish new 

budgets—Florida, North Carolina, and 

South Carolina—are no longer required 

to participate in a CSAPR trading 

program for seasonal NOX emissions to 

address ozone transport obligations after 

2016. However, because EGUs in North 

Carolina and South Carolina16 are 

expected to continue to participate in a 

CSAPR trading program for annual NOX

emissions in order to address PM2.5- 

related transport obligations, Florida is 

expected to be the only state originally 

covered by CSAPR for NOX emissions 

for which all such coverage is ending as 

a result of the EPA’s set of actions to 

address the remand.17

Prior to this action, Texas EGUs have 

been subject to CSAPR FIP provisions 

requiring participation in the CSAPR 

SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program. 

With this action, the EPA is 

withdrawing the FIP provisions 

requiring Texas EGUs to participate in 

these CSAPR federal trading programs. 

(Although the court’s decision 

specifically remanded only Texas’ Phase 

2 SO2 budget, the court’s rationale for 

remanding that budget also implicates 

Texas’ Phase 2 annual NOX budget 

because the SO2 and annual NOX

budgets were developed through an 

integrated analysis and were 

promulgated to meet a common PM2.5

transport obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).) This action has no 

effect on the separate CSAPR 

requirements applicable to Texas EGUs 

relating to seasonal NOX emissions, 

which, as discussed in the preceding 

paragraph, were promulgated in the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45484 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

18 81 FR at 78957. 

19 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also generally 77 FR 

33642. Legal challenges to the CSAPR-better-thanBART rule from conservation groups and other 

petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 

6, 2012). 

20See Technical Support Document for 

Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART 

Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729–0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART 

Technical Support Document), and memo entitled 

‘‘Sensitivity Analysis Accounting for Increases in 

Texas and Georgia Transport Rule State Emissions 

Budgets,’’ Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729–0323 (May 29, 2012), both available in the 

docket for this action. 

21The EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on 

CSAPR participation for BART purposes for 

Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, 

Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 

33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 

2012). The EPA has approved SIPs relying on 

CSAPR participation for BART purposes for 

Minnesota, 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12, 2012), and 

Wisconsin, 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August 7, 2012). 

22With respect to each of the remanded budgets, 

the EPA has responded or expects to respond to the 

remand by withdrawing the FIP provisions 

requiring compliance with the remanded budget. 

Thus, all changes to CSAPR arising directly from 

the Agency’s response to the remand are changes 

in CSAPR’s geographic scope rather than changes 

in the stringency of state budgets. Although the EPA 

has also promulgated new CSAPR seasonal NOX

budgets for 22 states (including eight states with 

remanded seasonal NOX budgets) in order to 

address a more stringent NAAQS, see generally 81 

FR 74504, for purposes of the sensitivity analysis 

the EPA has conservatively not considered the 

generally increased stringency of the new seasonal 

NOX budgets, but the EPA did consider the changes 

in CSAPR’s geographic scope—that is, the fact that 

the remaining three states with remanded seasonal 

NOX budgets will no longer participate in CSAPR 

for seasonal NOX.

23 795 F.3d at 128–29. A more detailed discussion 

of how the EPA established the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2

budget for Texas and why the court found the 

budget invalid is included in the proposal for this 

action. 81 FR at 78958. 

CSAPR Update rule and are not subject 

to the D.C. Circuit’s remand. 

B. CSAPR Participation as a BART 

Alternative 

The proposal provides a detailed 

explanation of the Regional Haze Rule 

requirements for best available retrofit 

technology (BART) and the criteria for 

demonstrating that an alternative 

measure achieves greater reasonable 

progress than source-specific BART.18

In 2012, the EPA amended the 

Regional Haze Rule to provide that 

participation by a state’s EGUs in a 

CSAPR trading program for a given 

pollutant—either a CSAPR federal 

trading program implemented through a 

CSAPR FIP or a CSAPR state trading 

program implemented through an 

approved CSAPR SIP revision— 

qualifies as a BART alternative for those 

EGUs for that pollutant.19 In 

promulgating this CSAPR-better-thanBART rule, the EPA relied on an 

analytic demonstration of the 

improvement in visibility from CSAPR 

implementation relative to BART 

implementation based on an air quality 

modeling study.20 Since the EPA 

promulgated this amendment, 

numerous states covered by CSAPR 

have come to rely on the provision 

through either SIPs or FIPs.21

Additionally, many states have 

submitted or are planning to submit 

SIPs relying on the CSAPR-better-thanBART rule for BART or visibility 

transport purposes, or to replace 

regional haze FIPs with SIPs. 

As explained in the proposal, the 

2012 analytic demonstration that 

CSAPR provides for greater reasonable 

progress than BART included Texas 

EGUs as subject to CSAPR for SO2 and 

annual NOX (as well as seasonal NOX) 

and included Florida EGUs as subject to 

CSAPR for seasonal NOX. The EPA 

recognizes that the treatment of these 

EGUs in the analysis would have been 

different if the Florida FIP withdrawal 

finalized in the CSAPR Update rule and 

the Texas FIP withdrawal finalized in 

this action had been known at the time 

of the demonstration. In order to 

address any potential concern about 

continuing to rely on CSAPR 

participation as a BART alternative for 

EGUs in the remaining CSAPR states, in 

the proposal for this action the EPA 

provided a sensitivity analysis explicitly 

addressing the potential effect on that 

demonstration of the removal of Texas 

and Florida EGUs from the relevant 

CSAPR trading programs in response to 

the D.C. Circuit’s remand. As discussed 

in section IV, the sensitivity analysis 

indicates clearly that the demonstration 

remains valid despite these changes in 

CSAPR’s geographic scope, supporting 

the continued validity of EPA’s 2012 

conclusion that CSAPR participation 

meets the Regional Haze Rule’s criteria 

for a BART alternative.22 Consequently, 

in this action the EPA is affirming the 

current Regional Haze Rule provision at 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) authorizing the use 

of CSAPR participation as a BART 

alternative for BART-eligible EGUs for a 

given pollutant in states whose EGUs 

continue to participate in a CSAPR 

trading program for that pollutant. 

III. Withdrawal of CSAPR FIP 

Requirements Related to Texas’ 

Transport Obligations With Regard to 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

A. Summary 

In this action, as proposed, the EPA 

is responding to the remand of the 

CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas by 

withdrawing the FIP provisions 

requiring Texas EGUs to participate in 

the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading 

Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program with regard to 

emissions during Phase 2 of those 

programs, which began in 2017. In EME 

Homer City II, the court remanded the 

CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas to 

the EPA for reconsideration on the 

grounds that the budget may be more 

stringent than necessary to address the 

state’s obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to reduce transported 

pollution with respect to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS.23 Upon review of 

options for responding to the remand, 

the EPA has determined, for the reasons 

discussed in this section, that 

withdrawal of the FIP provisions 

identified above, rather than issuance of 

revised FIP provisions for Texas with a 

higher (i.e., less stringent) Phase 2 SO2

budget as advocated by some 

commenters, is the appropriate 

response. Withdrawal of the FIP 

provisions related to the CSAPR SO2

trading program encompasses 

withdrawal of the requirement for Texas 

EGUs to comply with the remanded 

Phase 2 SO2 budget, thereby addressing 

the specific rule provision remanded by 

the court. The EPA is withdrawing the 

FIP provisions related to annual NOX (in 

addition to the requirements related to 

SO2) because the CSAPR FIP 

requirements for SO2 and annual NOX

were determined through an integrated 

analysis and were promulgated in 

combination to remedy covered states’ 

PM2.5 transport obligations; the court’s 

finding that CSAPR’s Phase 2 

requirements may be more stringent 

than necessary to address Texas’ PM2.5

transport obligation therefore implicates 

the state’s Phase 2 budgets for both SO2

and annual NOX. 

Withdrawal of the previous CSAPR 

FIP requirements revives the need to 

consider Texas’ transport obligation 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and to address any remaining 

obligation through other means. 

However, as proposed, the Agency is 

further determining that Texas has no 

remaining transport obligation under 

this CAA provision with regard to this 

NAAQS following withdrawal of the 

previous FIP requirements, and 

consequently is also determining that 

the EPA has no obligation to issue new 

FIP requirements as to Texas’s transport 

obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In the CSAPR final rule, the EPA 

determined that 23 states, including 

Texas, had transport obligations with 

regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45485 

24The EPA also determined in CSAPR and a 

related supplemental rule that 25 states, including 

Texas, had transport obligations with regard to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In all, 28 states were 

determined to have transport obligations related to 

either PM2.5, ozone, or both. The EPA’s process for 

determining states’ emissions limitations under 

CSAPR and the associated CSAPR FIP requirements 

is described at length in the preamble to the CSAPR 

final rule. See generally 77 FR at 48222–71. 

25As noted in the proposal and further discussed 

below, the modeling for the CSAPR final rule also 

linked Texas to a downwind air quality problem 

with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but 

the EPA did not rely on the linkage with regard to 

that NAAQS as a basis for establishing CSAPR FIP 

requirements for Texas EGUs. 81 FR at 78960 n.42; 

see also 76 FR at 48243, 48214. 

26 81 FR at 78960. 

27See Opening Brief of Industry and Labor 

Petitioners on Remand 8, 14, EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. filed 

December 10, 2014). 

28EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 129–30. The 

court also remanded the Phase 2 seasonal NOX

budget for an eleventh state (Texas), but on different 

grounds. 29See 76 FR at 48241, tables V.D–2 and V.D–3. 30The EPA independently considered linkages to 

‘‘nonattainment’’ and ‘‘maintenance’’ receptors. If 

both the projected average design value and the 

projected maximum design values for a receptor 

were above the triggering threshold, the receptor 

was considered a nonattainment receptor. If the 

projected maximum design value was above the 

triggering threshold but the projected average 

design value was not, the receptor was considered 

a maintenance receptor. Thus, if the projected 

maximum design value was not above the triggering 

threshold, the receptor was not considered either a 

nonattainment receptor or a maintenance receptor. 

See 76 FR at 48233. 

31See projected 2014 base case maximum annual 

PM2.5 design value for Madison County, Illinois 

receptor 171191007 at B–41 of the Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–4140 

(June 2011) (CSAPR Final Rule Technical Support 

Document), available in the docket for this action. 32 76 FR at 48233. 

NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, or both, and established SO2

and annual NOX emissions budgets for 

each of the states.24 The budgets were 

implemented through FIP provisions 

requiring the affected EGUs in each 

covered state to participate in CSAPR 

allowance trading programs. In the case 

of Texas, the PM2.5-related FIP 

requirements were imposed based solely 

on the state’s transport obligations with 

regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS.25

Following issuance of the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City II 

remanding the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2

budget for Texas, the EPA reevaluated 

its earlier conclusions regarding Texas’ 

PM2.5 transport obligations by 

reexamining the data in the final CSAPR 

record in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

holdings in the decision, including the 

holdings regarding the CSAPR Phase 2 

seasonal NOX budgets for several states, 

as explained in the proposal.26 The final 

CSAPR record contained ‘‘base case’’ 

modeling projections of air quality at 

monitoring locations throughout the 

country both for 2012, the intended start 

year of Phase 1 of the CSAPR trading 

programs, and for 2014, the intended 

start year of Phase 2 of the programs. 

The base case projections were designed 

to represent projected air quality at 

these monitoring locations without any 

emission reductions from CSAPR. In the 

CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA used the 

2012 base case air quality projections for 

purposes of identifying ozone receptors 

projected to have air quality problems 

and determining states that were linked 

to those receptors and that therefore 

might have transport obligations under 

both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the CSAPR 

trading programs. However, in EME 

Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit agreed 

with petitioners27 that the EPA should 

also have considered the 2014 base case 

air quality projections for these 

purposes, and that in instances of 

receptors where the 2014 base case 

projections did not show air quality 

problems, the EPA lacked authority to 

require any emission reductions in 

Phase 2 of the CSAPR trading programs 

based on linkages to those receptors 

only occurring in Phase 1 of the 

programs. On these grounds, the court 

found that EPA lacked authority to 

establish Phase 2 seasonal NOX

emission limitations for EGUs in ten 

states linked solely to ozone receptors 

whose 2014 air quality projections did 

not show air quality problems.28

While not discussed in the court’s 

decision, the projections of 2014 air 

quality for a PM2.5 receptor in Madison 

County, Illinois (the only PM2.5 receptor 

with projected air quality problems to 

which Texas was linked) in the final 

CSAPR record are analogous to the 2014 

air quality projections for the ozone 

receptors described above, in that the air 

quality problems at the Madison County 

receptor were projected to be resolved 

in 2014 before any emission reductions 

from CSAPR. In light of the court’s 

holding as to the legal import of the 

2014 base case air quality projections for 

the ozone receptors described above, the 

EPA considered the legal import of the 

analogous 2014 base case air quality 

projections for the Madison County 

PM2.5 receptor with respect to Texas’ 

PM2.5-related obligations under CSAPR. 

There are three relevant record data 

elements. First, the record indicates that 

the only PM2.5 receptor to which Texas 

is linked for purposes of determining 

possible obligations under the good 

neighbor provision is the receptor in 

Madison County, Illinois.29 Second, the 

projected maximum design value 30 for 

annual PM2.5 at the Madison County 

receptor is 15.02 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) in the 2014 base case.31

Finally, the value that the EPA used to 

determine whether a particular PM2.5

receptor should be identified as having 

air quality problems that may trigger 

transport obligations with regard to the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.05 mg/ 

m3, which is higher than the Madison 

County maximum design value in the 

2014 base case.32 Thus, the reevaluation 

of the final CSAPR record in light of the 

D.C. Circuit’s holding indicates that the 

record does not support a finding of a 

transport obligation for Texas under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

regard to this NAAQS as of the 

beginning of Phase 2 of the CSAPR 

trading programs for SO2 and annual 

NOX, and the Agency accordingly finds 

that the state’s obligation is resolved 

without a need for further emission 

reductions, including the emission 

reductions from CSAPR. The finding 

that Texas’s transport obligation with 

regard to this NAAQS is resolved as of 

the start of Phase 2 of the CSAPR 

trading programs without the need for 

any emission reductions from CSAPR 

removes the EPA’s authority to issue 

new FIP requirements for purposes of 

responding to the court’s remand of the 

state’s CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget. The 

finding likewise eliminates any 

obligation of the EPA to issue new FIP 

requirements addressing a remaining 

transport obligation of the state with 

regard to this NAAQS following 

withdrawal of the existing CSAPR FIP 

requirements, because the state has no 

such remaining transport obligation 

following the withdrawal. 

As noted in the proposal, the 

modeling for the CSAPR final rule also 

linked Texas to a downwind air quality 

problem with regard to the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but the EPA did not rely 

on the linkage with regard to this 

NAAQS as a basis for establishing 

CSAPR FIP requirements for Texas 

EGUs. In the proposal, the EPA 

indicated that data in the final CSAPR 

record, reevaluated in light of EME 

Homer City II, would show that Texas 

no longer has a transport obligation with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS as of the beginning of Phase 2 

of the CSAPR trading programs for SO2

and annual NOX, but that because Texas 

was not subject to CSAPR requirements 

with regard to this NAAQS, the EPA 

was not proposing to make a 

determination in this action as to any 

obligation of Texas with regard to this 

NAAQS. Nevertheless, because 

commenters raise the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in their comments, the 

EPA will explain how the court’s 

reasoning would apply with respect to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45486 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

33See 76 FR at 48242–44, tables V.D–5 and V.D– 

6. 

34See projected 2014 base case maximum 24- 

hour PM2.5 design value for Madison County, 

Illinois receptor 171191007 at B–70 of the CSAPR 

Final Rule Technical Support Document, available 

in the docket for this action. 

35 76 FR at 48234–35. 

36A third commenter states without further 

elaboration that it does not oppose the FIP 

withdrawal. 

37 81 FR at 78960. 

38EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 124, 138. 39 Id. at 132 (emphasis added). 

the data for this NAAQS. The analysis 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 

essentially identical to the analysis 

described above with regard to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the 

Madison County receptor is the only 

PM2.5 receptor to which Texas was 

linked for this NAAQS; 33 the projected 

maximum design value for 24-hour 

PM2.5 at the Madison County receptor is 

35.3 mg/m3 in the 2014 base case; 34 and 

the value that the EPA used to 

determine whether a particular PM2.5

receptor should be identified as having 

air quality problems that may trigger 

transport obligations with regard to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35.5 mg/ 

m3, which is higher than the Madison 

County maximum design value in the 

2014 base case.35 Thus, the reevaluation 

of the final CSAPR record in light of the 

D.C. Circuit’s holding also indicates that 

the record would not support a finding 

of a transport obligation for Texas with 

regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS as of the beginning of Phase 2 

of the CSAPR trading programs for SO2

and annual NOX. 

Overall, on the subject of the 

proposed withdrawal of the FIP 

provisions and the proposed finding 

that Texas will no longer have a 

transport obligation following 

withdrawal of the FIP provisions, the 

EPA received substantive comments 

from two parties.36 The remainder of 

this section summarizes these 

commenters’ principal comments on 

this topic and provides the Agency’s 

response. 

B. Adequacy of Rationale for Finding No 

Remaining Transport Obligation 

The commenters state that the 

Agency’s explanation for the proposed 

finding that Texas no longer has a 

transport obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS as of the 

beginning of Phase 2 of the CSAPR 

trading programs for SO2 and annual 

NOX is inadequate or confusing, and 

that the Agency must provide additional 

explanation for changing its position on 

the continued existence of a Texas 

transport obligation from the contrary 

position taken by the Agency when 

promulgating the CSAPR final rule. 

The EPA disagrees with these 

comments. The proposal contained a 

complete explanation of the Agency’s 

basis for this finding, including all 

necessary supporting data and 

documentation.37 As fully explained in 

the proposal and reiterated above, the 

Agency’s change in position as to Texas’ 

transport obligation between the CSAPR 

final rule and this action is readily 

attributable to the D.C. Circuit’s holding 

in EME Homer City II with regard to the 

legal import of the 2014 base case air 

quality projections in the final CSAPR 

record. The court’s holding clarifies the 

legal standard the Agency should have 

used when considering the information 

in the final CSAPR record, which 

includes those air quality projections. 

C. Responsiveness to the D.C. Circuit’s 

Remand Instructions 

The commenters assert that 

withdrawal of the remanded Texas SO2

budget without issuance of a 

presumably less stringent replacement 

budget is not responsive to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand instructions. 

According to the commenters, the court 

directed the EPA to develop a revised 

CSAPR FIP SO2 budget for Texas EGUs 

that does not over-control, and the EPA 

must either do so or, alternatively, must 

allow Texas to submit a CSAPR SIP 

with a higher SO2 budget. The 

commenters’ argument is intended to 

provide a continued basis for reliance 

on CSAPR participation as an SO2

BART alternative for Texas EGUs. 

Underlying the commenters’ arguments 

is an apparent belief that a revised, 

higher CSAPR budget, whether issued 

through a FIP or approved through a 

SIP, would automatically enable Texas 

to rely on CSAPR participation as an 

alternative to source-specific SO2 BART 

requirements for the State’s EGUs under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

The EPA disagrees with these 

comments. As an initial matter, the D.C. 

Circuit in fact did not direct the Agency 

to develop replacement budgets for the 

Texas SO2 budget or any of the other 

remanded CSAPR Phase 2 budgets. 

Rather, the court found that certain 

budgets were invalid and remanded to 

the EPA to ‘‘reconsider’’ them,38 a 

general instruction that encompasses a 

range of possible Agency actions upon 

reconsideration. The commenters cite 

no statement from the court’s opinion 

that requires the establishment of 

replacement budgets, but assert that 

such a requirement must be inferred 

from the court’s other statements or 

determinations. For example, the 

commenters suggest that because the 

court remanded the budgets without 

vacatur instead of vacating the budgets 

outright, the court must have intended 

for the Agency to replace rather than 

simply withdraw the budgets. However, 

the court actually provided a different 

rationale for remanding without vacatur, 

including the statement that ‘‘some good 

neighbor obligations may be appropriate 

for some of the relevant states.’’ 39 The 

reference to ‘‘some’’ of the states 

indicates that the court considered it 

likely that replacement budgets would 

not be established in every instance, and 

the use of the word ‘‘may’’ indicates that 

the court considered it possible that 

replacement budgets would not be 

established in any instance. Thus, 

contrary to the commenters’ claims, the 

court’s opinion clearly affords the 

Agency the discretion to determine the 

appropriate response to the remand and 

does not prevent the Agency from 

determining upon reconsideration that 

the program is no longer needed for a 

particular state with respect to a 

particular pollutant and consequently 

not establishing a replacement budget. 

The commenters make several 

additional arguments in support of their 

contention that the FIP withdrawal is 

not responsive to the D.C. Circuit’s 

instructions. One commenter asserts 

that because the court stated that the 

Agency could consider new information 

in responding to the remand, the court 

must have intended for the Agency’s 

response to involve the establishment of 

replacement budgets. This claim is a 

non sequitur—the court’s 

acknowledgement that additional 

information may be considered says 

nothing about what the Agency may or 

must conclude from consideration of 

that information. The same commenter 

also asserts that the Agency may not 

rely on lack of FIP authority as the basis 

for not establishing a revised budget 

because lack of FIP authority was not 

the basis cited by the court for 

remanding the budget. This claim is also 

a non sequitur—the Agency lacks 

authority to issue a revised budget and 

therefore may not do so, regardless of 

what additional defects the court may 

have cited in ordering the remand. 

The other commenter asserts that the 

FIP withdrawal would disrupt 

allowance markets, contrary to the 

concern expressed by the D.C. Circuit 

that outright vacatur, rather than 

remand without vacatur, could have 

that impact. While the EPA agrees with 

the concern expressed by the court and 

the commenter regarding the potentially 

disruptive effects of outright vacatur on 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45487 

40See ‘‘2015–2016 Compliance Summary for 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 and NOX Annual Trading 

Programs,’’ available in the docket for this action. 

41 Id. 

42See CAA section 110(c). 

43 81 FR at 78960. 

44Texas did not submit comments on the 

proposal for this action. 

45 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

46 40 CFR 52.39(i)(1)(i). 

47To the extent the commenters are suggesting 

that the D.C. Circuit’s holdings in EME Homer City 

II require the Agency to find that a SIP with a 

revised, higher SO2 budget would somehow satisfy 

the CSAPR-better-than-BART rule despite its plain 

language, the Agency disagrees. The court held that 

the remanded budgets may over-control relative to 

the states’ transport obligations, but did not 

determine that the budgets are more stringent than 

necessary to serve as an alternative to sourcespecific BART. Further, the CSAPR-better-thanBART rule rests on an evaluation of the projected 

visibility impacts from CSAPR implementation 

assuming the final CSAPR Phase 2 budget 

stringencies (including the 2012 CSAPR budget 

revisions, which were accounted for in the analysis 

for the final CSAPR-better-than-BART rule). Given 

this, continuing to enforce the CSAPR-better-thanBART rule’s requirement that a state’s participation 

in CSAPR through a SIP must ‘‘meet[] the 

requirements of . . . § 52.39’’—including the 

requirement for a state budget no less stringent than 

was analyzed for purposes of promulgating the 

rule—is entirely reasonable. 

48 71 FR at 78956–57. 

allowance markets, the Agency does not 

agree that the court’s concern regarding 

unintended consequences of a judicial 

vacatur provides a basis for not taking 

final action at this time to withdraw the 

Texas FIP requirements, for two reasons. 

First, the EPA believes that the court did 

not intend for its expression of concern 

to constrain the Agency’s range of 

possible responses to the remand. As 

discussed above, it is clear from the 

opinion that the court anticipated the 

possibility that upon reconsideration 

the EPA would determine that some, or 

even all, of the remanded budgets 

should be withdrawn and not replaced. 

Second, in this instance, emissions data 

reported by the EGUs covered by the 

CSAPR trading programs for SO2 and 

annual NOX demonstrate that 

withdrawal of the FIP provisions 

requiring Texas EGUs to participate in 

these programs will not cause allowance 

market disruption for the programs’ 

remaining participants. Under both 

programs, the totals of the emissions 

reported by participating EGUs for both 

2015 and 2016 in states other than 

Texas were less than the sums of the 

Phase 2 emissions budgets for these 

other states.40 Likewise, under both 

programs the totals of the emissions 

reported by Texas EGUs for both 2015 

and 2016 were less than the Texas Phase 

2 budgets.41 The elimination from the 

programs of Texas EGUs and the 

allowances allocated to Texas EGUs is 

therefore not expected to cause either 

shortages of allowances available for 

purchase by EGUs in the other states or 

the loss of an important market for sale 

of surplus allowances by EGUs in the 

other states. In these circumstances, the 

EPA anticipates that the FIP withdrawal 

will have little impact on the allowance 

market in either trading program. 

With regard to the two commenters’ 

preferred response to the remand—that 

the EPA establish a revised, less 

stringent SO2 budget for Texas EGUs 

and implement that budget through a 

revised FIP—such an action is infeasible 

because the Agency lacks the necessary 

legal authority. In this action, the EPA 

is finalizing the proposed finding that 

Texas no longer has a transport 

obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. That finding addresses 

the deficiency in the Texas SIP that was 

the basis for issuance of the withdrawn 

FIP requirements and, therefore, 

because there is no longer a deficiency, 

the Agency no longer has authority to 

issue revised FIP requirements.42 The 

reasons for the finding are discussed 

above and were discussed at length in 

the proposal.43

With regard to the commenters’ 

suggested alternative response to the 

remand—that the EPA allow Texas to 

submit a CSAPR SIP with a higher SO2

budget in order to allow the state to rely 

on CSAPR participation as an SO2

BART alternative even if the state’s 

EGUs are no longer subject to a CSAPR 

FIP SO2 budget—the comment is not 

properly directed to the EPA, because 

Texas has not expressed interest in 

submitting a CSAPR SIP.44 Moreover, 

even if consideration of Texas’ BART 

obligations were relevant for our action 

on remand, reliance on CSAPR 

participation with a higher budget 

would not automatically qualify as an 

SO2 BART alternative under the terms 

of the CSAPR-better-than-BART rule. 

That rule allows a state to rely on its 

EGUs’ participation in a CSAPR SIP 

trading program only if the EPA 

approves the SIP as ‘‘meeting the 

requirements of’’ the CSAPR regulations 

at 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.45 As relevant 

here, the CSAPR regulations at § 52.39 

expressly preclude a state’s SO2

emissions budget from exceeding the 

SO2 emissions budget established under 

the CSAPR FIP trading program that the 

CSAPR SIP trading program would 

replace.46 Thus, even if the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand could serve as a basis 

for the EPA to approve a SIP revision 

that does not satisfy § 52.39 on the 

grounds that the state’s transport 

obligations can be addressed by a less 

stringent budget, the CSAPR-betterthan-BART rule at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 

would not be satisfied. A SIP approved 

on such a basis could in theory provide 

a mechanism for Texas EGUs to 

participate in CSAPR with a higher SO2

budget than the remanded FIP budget 

despite the Agency’s lack of authority to 

set a revised SO2 budget through a 

revised FIP. However, because of the 

increased SO2 budget, such a SIP would 

not ‘‘meet[] the requirements of . . . 

§ 52.39’’ and therefore would not allow 

the state to rely on its EGUs’ 

participation in the CSAPR SIP trading 

program as an alternative to sourcespecific BART for SO2.47

D. Consistency of Responses to Remand 

Across States 

One commenter states that by 

withdrawing the FIP requirements the 

EPA is arbitrarily singling Texas out as 

the only state with a remanded CSAPR 

budget whose EGUs will lose the ability 

to rely on CSAPR participation as a 

BART alternative. The commenter 

further asserts that the Agency’s ‘‘sole 

purpose’’ in withdrawing the FIP 

requirements is to facilitate the 

imposition of source-specific SO2 BART 

requirements on Texas EGUs through a 

different action. 

The EPA disagrees with these 

comments, which are entirely contrary 

to the record. First, on the question of 

uniform application of the CSAPRbetter-than-BART regulations, no state 

whose EGUs do not participate in a 

CSAPR trading program for a given 

pollutant can rely on CSAPR 

participation as a BART alternative for 

that pollutant. In response to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand of CSAPR Phase 2 

budgets, the EPA has withdrawn or 

expects to withdraw all fifteen 

remanded budgets. As explained in the 

proposal, in thirteen instances, the state 

will retain eligibility to rely on the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule for the 

pollutant in question through either the 

EPA’s establishment of a new CSAPR 

budget to address a more stringent 

NAAQS (eight seasonal NOX budgets), 

the state’s sources’ continued 

participation in a different CSAPR 

trading program for the same pollutant 

(two seasonal NOX budgets), or the 

state’s voluntary adoption in a SIP 

revision of a CSAPR state budget as 

stringent as the remanded CSAPR FIP 

budget (three SO2 budgets).48 In the 

remaining two instances where a 

remanded budget is being withdrawn 

and none of the three options for 

preserving eligibility to rely on CSAPRbetter-than-BART applies—Texas’ SO2

budget and Florida’s seasonal NOX

budget—the state is losing the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45488 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

49As noted in the proposal, 81 FR at 78962, n.55, 

the EPA has already approved the incorporation 

into Florida’s SIP of determinations regarding 

source-specific NOX BART. 77 FR 71111, 71113–14 

(November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250, 53267 (August 

29, 2013). 

50As a further example of the consistent 

treatment of Texas, the EPA notes that, despite the 

withdrawal of the Texas FIP requirements relating 

to annual NOX emissions, the state will be able to 

continue to rely on the CSAPR-better-than-BART 

rule for NOX as long as the state’s EGUs continue 

to participate in a CSAPR trading program for 

seasonal NOX emissions. See 81 FR at 78955 n.4 

and 78956 n.7. 

51See memo entitled ‘‘The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Plan for Responding to the 

Remand of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Phase 

2 SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina 

and Texas’’ from Janet G. McCabe, EPA Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Air Division Directors (June 27, 

2016), available in the docket for this action. The 

memo directs the Regional Air Division Directors to 

share the memo with state officials. The EPA also 

communicated orally with officials in Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas in advance of 

the memo. 

52Although the D.C. Circuit remanded the states’ 

Phase 2 SO2 budgets because it determined that the 

budgets may be more stringent than necessary to 

address the states’ identified PM2.5 transport 

obligations, nothing in the court’s decision affects 

the states’ authority to seek incorporation into their 

SIPs of state-established budgets as stringent as the 

remanded federally-established budgets or limits 

the EPA’s authority to approve such SIP revisions. 

See CAA sections 116, 110(k)(3). 

53Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule, 81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016). 54See letters to Heather McTeer Toney, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 4, from Judson H. 

Turner, Director of the Environmental Protection 

Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(May 26, 2016) and from Myra C. Reece, Director 

of Environmental Affairs, South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(April 19, 2016), available in the docket for this 

action. The EPA has conditionally approved the 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 visibility 

element for multiple NAAQS in the Georgia and 

South Carolina SIPs based on each state’s 

commitment to submit a CSAPR SIP revision. 81 FR 

65899, 65900 (September 26, 2016) (Georgia); 81 FR 

56512, 56513 (August 22, 2016) (South Carolina). 

Each state committed to submit its CSAPR SIP 

revision within one year of the date of the Agency’s 

final conditional approval of the state’s prong 4 SIP 

revision. Failure of a state to meet a commitment 

serving as the basis for a conditional SIP approval 

results in automatic conversion of the conditional 

approval to a disapproval. 

55See letter to V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 4, from Richard E. 

Dunn, Director, Environmental Protection Division, 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (July 26, 

2017), available in the docket for this action. 

56See letter to V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 4, from Myra C. Reece, 

Director of Environmental Affairs, South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(May 26, 2017), available in the docket for this 

action. Under the parallel processing procedure, the 

EPA works closely with the state agency during 

regulatory development, and the state submits a 

copy of its proposed regulations to the EPA before 

completion of the state’s public notice and adoption 

process. The EPA reviews the proposed state action, 

prepares a notice of proposed EPA action (approval 

or disapproval) for publication in the Federal 

Register, and provides public notice concurrently 

with the state’s process. After the state adopts its 

final regulations and submits its formal SIP revision 

request, the EPA reviews the SIP submission for 

changes from proposal and either prepares a notice 

of final EPA action or, if the state has made 

significant changes, may re-propose before taking 

final EPA action. The public comment period on 

South Carolina’s proposed regulations ended on 

June 26, 2017, and the state expects its final 

regulations to become effective in August 2017. Id. 

57Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule, 82 FR 38866 (August 16, 2017); Air 

Plan Approval; South Carolina; Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule, 82 FR 37389 (August 10, 2017). 

58 If the EPA disapproves Georgia’s or South 

Carolina’s SIP submittal, the EPA will propose to 

withdraw the FIP provisions requiring that state’s 

EGUs to participate in the CSAPR federal trading 

programs for SO2 and annual NOX, consistent with 

the action taken here for Texas EGUs. 

59See 76 FR at 48241–44, tables V.D–2, V.D–3, 

V.D–5, and V.D–6 (annual and 24-hour PM2.5

linkages); id. at 48246, tables V.D–8 and V.D–9 

(ozone linkages); CSAPR Final Rule Technical 

Support Document at B–35 to B–92 (2014 base case 

maximum design values for annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5); id. at B–4 to B–34 (2014 base case maximum 

design values for ozone). As discussed above, the 

relevant triggering values for annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 are 15.05 mg/m3 and 35.5 mg/m3, respectively. 

The relevant triggering value for ozone is 85 parts 

per billion (ppb). 76 FR at 48236. 

opportunity to rely on CSAPR 

participation as a BART alternative for 

that pollutant.49 Thus, Texas is being 

treated the same as every other state 

with respect to use of the CSAPR-betterthan-BART rule.50

Second, on the question of the EPA’s 

purpose in withdrawing the FIP 

requirements, that purpose is to address 

the court’s remand. As explained in the 

proposal, before initiating this action, 

the EPA communicated with officials in 

all four states with remanded SO2

budgets—Alabama, Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Texas—regarding the 

EPA’s intent to respond to the remand 

of the Phase 2 SO2 budgets by 

withdrawing the FIP provisions 

requiring the states’ EGUs to participate 

in the CSAPR federal trading programs 

for SO2 and annual NOX.51 The EPA 

explained that each state would lose its 

ability to rely on CSAPR participation as 

a BART alternative for SO2 and/or NOX

if its EGUs no longer participated in the 

CSAPR trading programs, but that the 

state could preserve that ability, if 

desired, by submitting a CSAPR SIP 

revision replacing the CSAPR federal 

trading programs with CSAPR state 

trading programs applying stateestablished budgets no less stringent 

than the remanded federally-established 

budgets (i.e., budgets consistent with 

the 2012 CSAPR-better-than-BART 

analytic demonstration).52 Alabama, 

Georgia, and South Carolina indicated 

their preference to pursue the SIP 

revision option. The EPA approved 

Alabama’s CSAPR SIP revision in 2016 

and, accordingly, the FIP provisions 

requiring its EGUs to participate in the 

CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2

and annual NOX have been 

automatically withdrawn.53 Georgia and 

South Carolina committed to the EPA in 

2016 to submit similar CSAPR SIP 

revisions by deadlines falling in 

September 2017 and August 2017, 

respectively.54 Georgia has in fact now 

submitted its SIP to the EPA for 

approval,55 South Carolina has 

submitted its proposed state CSAPR 

trading program rules and has requested 

that the EPA begin the SIP approval 

process under the Agency’s parallel 

processing procedure,56 and the EPA 

has proposed to approve both SIP 

revisions.57 The CSAPR FIP provisions 

remain in place for the time being for 

EGUs in Georgia and South Carolina, 

and the EPA is not proposing their 

withdrawal at this time based on the 

reasonable expectation that such 

withdrawal will be automatically 

accomplished as a result of the Agency’s 

action on those states’ SIP submittals, 

just as with Alabama.58 Because Texas 

has indicated that it will not submit a 

CSAPR SIP revision, the EPA is 

proceeding with this action to withdraw 

the FIP requirements for Texas EGUs, 

consistent with the intended approach 

previously communicated to officials for 

all four states. Texas has had the same 

set of options available to all four states 

with remanded SO2 budgets and has 

selected a different option than the 

other three states. 

E. Consistency of Consideration of D.C. 

Circuit’s Holding Across States 

One commenter asserts that the EPA 

has not analyzed whether other states 

covered by CSAPR are linked only to 

receptors for which the 2014 base case 

projections do not show air quality 

problems, and that ‘‘[b]y not performing 

that analysis, the EPA is arbitrarily 

singling Texas out for removal from the 

CSAPR program.’’ 

The EPA disagrees with these 

comments. With respect to the budgets 

that were not remanded by the court, 

the Agency has confirmed for each such 

budget that the state is linked to at least 

one receptor for which the base case 

2014 air quality projections showed air 

quality problems. The court’s holding as 

to lack of authority to establish Phase 2 

emission reduction requirements for a 

state in the absence of any linkage to a 

projected air quality problem in the 

2014 base case therefore does not extend 

to these budgets.59

With respect to the remanded 

budgets, the EPA again rejects the 

suggestion that Texas is being treated 

differently than any other state. As 

noted in the response above to the 

comments concerning the consistency of 

the Agency’s responses to the remand, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45489 

60 In the case of the last remanded seasonal NOX

budget—for Texas—the court remanded the budget 

on different grounds, and the EPA subsequently 

determined through further analysis that the state 

has no remaining transport obligation under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR at 74524. In the 

cases of the remanded SO2 budgets for Alabama, 

Georgia, and South Carolina, the states are adopting 

equally stringent CSAPR SIP budgets to replace the 

withdrawn FIP budgets in order to preserve the 

states’ options to rely on the CSAPR-better-thanBART rule, thereby rendering moot any questions 

about the states’ remaining transport obligations 

and EPA’s authority or obligation to issue revised 

FIP budgets to address such transport obligations. 

61See 81 FR at 78960 n.42; see also 76 FR at 

48213, table III–1. 62One of the commenters asserts that ‘‘under 

EPA’s own theory,’’ the existence of this data in the 

CSAPR final record mandates that the EPA consider 

the state’s transport obligations with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS before withdrawing the 

FIP requirements. Wrongly attributing this ‘‘theory’’ 

to the Agency, the commenter ignores other factors 

the Agency must take into account before 

promulgating FIP requirements, such as whether a 

statutory condition establishing FIP authority has 

been satisfied. In any event, for this final action the 

Agency has expressly considered (and rejected) the 

option of leaving the Texas FIP requirements in 

place to address the state’s transport obligations 

with respect to this NAAQS, as discussed in this 

section. 

63As discussed in the proposal, addressing the 

remanded budgets by withdrawing the FIP 

requirements is also fully consistent with the 

manner in which EPA has responded to previous 

judicial remands regarding obligations of individual 

states under other EPA rules addressing multiple 

states’ transport obligations. 81 FR at 78959. 

64As noted in the proposal, for three of the eleven 

states with remanded seasonal NOX budgets 

addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS— 

Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina—the 

EPA found no transport obligations with respect to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and did not 

establish seasonal NOX budgets addressing that 

NAAQS. 81 FR at 78959. 

65Texas has submitted SIPs intended to address 

its transport obligations under each of these 

NAAQS. In the case of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, the EPA has proposed to disapprove the 

state’s transport SIP submittal, 76 FR 20602 (April 

13, 2011), but has yet not taken final action. In the 

case of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has 

not yet taken any action on the state’s transport SIP 

submittal. 

66 81 FR at 78955 n.5. 

the FIP requirements to comply with all 

the remanded budgets, not just the 

remanded Texas SO2 budget, have been 

withdrawn or are expected to be 

withdrawn. Further, as discussed above, 

in the cases of ten of the eleven 

remanded seasonal NOX budgets, the 

absence of air quality problems at the 

relevant receptors in the 2014 base case 

projections was expressly cited by the 

court as the basis for remanding the 

budgets. The EPA’s reliance on the 

court’s holding as applied to those 

states’ ozone-related transport 

obligations with regard to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS is indistinguishable 

from the EPA’s reliance on the same 

holding as applied to Texas’ PM2.5- 

related transport obligations with regard 

to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.60

F. Potential Use of Texas FIP Budgets To 

Address a Different PM2.5 NAAQS 

Finally, the commenters state that the 

EPA should consider Texas’s obligations 

to address interstate transport with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and/or the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS before withdrawing Texas’ FIP 

obligations. As noted in the proposal 

and discussed above, in the case of 

Texas, CSAPR FIP obligations related to 

PM2.5 pollution were established with 

respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS only, even though for other 

states the CSAPR FIPs were based on 

the states’ transport obligations with 

respect to both the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.61 The commenters assert that 

failure to consider Texas’ potential 

transport obligations with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS now before 

withdrawing the FIP obligations would 

be inconsistent with the manner in 

which the EPA responded to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand of seasonal NOX

budgets and inconsistent with data in 

the CSAPR record that links Texas to 

downwind air quality problems with 

respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.62

The EPA disagrees with this comment 

for three reasons. First, as noted above, 

the Agency is responding to the court’s 

remand of all fifteen CSAPR Phase 2 

SO2 and seasonal NOX budgets in the 

same way, namely by withdrawing the 

FIP provisions requiring affected EGUs 

to comply with the remanded budgets.63

The differences noted by the 

commenters are differences only in the 

actions that are being coordinated with 

the responses, not differences in the 

responses themselves. 

Second, the differences in the 

coordinated actions are reasonable given 

the differences in other regulatory 

activities being undertaken for the two 

pollutants. The EPA coordinated the 

withdrawal of the eleven remanded 

seasonal NOX budgets addressing the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the 

establishment of new budgets for eight 

of those states addressing the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS because a 

rulemaking to address transported 

pollution with respect to the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS was actively 

under development at the time of the 

court’s decision.64 Under this 

circumstance, such coordination was 

efficient and fully consistent with the 

court’s expressed intent to minimize 

market disruption and to continue to 

address statutory obligations to reduce 

transported pollution where 

appropriate. In contrast, no analogous 

opportunity is available to coordinate 

withdrawal of the remanded SO2

budgets with another rulemaking 

addressing a more recent PM2.5 NAAQS 

because states’ transport obligations 

with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS have already been largely 

addressed through either SIPs or the 

CSAPR rulemaking, and the Agency has 

not identified interstate transport 

problems with respect to the 2012 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS sufficient to 

justify a new national rulemaking at this 

time. 

Third, the EPA lacks authority to rely 

on a transport obligation for Texas with 

respect to either the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS or the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS as the legal basis to support 

imposing an SO2 budget for the state via 

a FIP. Under CAA section 110(c), the 

Agency’s authority to issue a FIP with 

respect to a particular state obligation 

arises either when the Agency finds that 

a state has failed to submit a required 

SIP or when the Agency disapproves a 

submitted SIP. Neither of these 

predicate events has occurred with 

regard to Texas’ transport obligations 

under either the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS or the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS.65 Commenters are correct that 

data in the final CSAPR record, as 

evaluated by the Agency when CSAPR 

was promulgated, showed that PM2.5

pollution transported from Texas to 

downwind states exceeded the 

minimum threshold level used to 

establish which states might have 

transport obligations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However, as noted 

in the proposal 66 and discussed above, 

the 2014 base case air quality 

projections in the final CSAPR record, 

when reevaluated in light of the D.C. 

Circuit’s holdings in EME Homer City II, 

would support a finding that as of the 

beginning of Phase 2 of the CSAPR 

trading programs for SO2 and annual 

NOX, Texas does not have an ongoing 

transport obligation with respect to the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, even 

if the EPA had taken final action 

disapproving Texas’ outstanding SIP 

submission addressing transported 

pollution with regard to the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, such a disapproval 

would no longer provide a basis for the 

Agency to issue a FIP in this instance, 

because without any remaining 

transport obligation, there is no 

remaining SIP deficiency to address 

through a FIP. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45490 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

67As described in sections II.A and III.D above, 

in addition to this action, the full set of actions 

being taken to respond to the remand includes the 

2016 CSAPR Update (see note 14 above) 

withdrawing the remanded seasonal NOX budgets 

for eleven states and establishing new seasonal NOX

budgets to address a more recent ozone NAAQS for 

eight of those states, the action approving 

Alabama’s SIP revision establishing state CSAPR 

trading programs for SO2 and annual NOX to 

replace the corresponding federal CSAPR trading 

programs (see note 53 above), and expected actions 

to approve proposed SIP revisions for Georgia and 

South Carolina comparable to Alabama’s SIP 

revision (see note 57 above). 

68This background is set forth in greater detail in 

the proposal. See 81 FR at 78961–62. 

69As described in the proposal, satisfaction of the 

two-pronged test based on an air quality modeling 

analysis is one of three ways that an alternative 

measure may be demonstrated to be ‘‘better than 

BART’’ under the Regional Haze Rule. 81 FR at 

78957. 

70 81 FR at 78961–64. 

71For purposes of the sensitivity analysis, the 

EPA conservatively did not consider the increased 

stringency of the CSAPR seasonal NOX budgets 

established in the CSAPR Update. See generally 81 

FR 74504. 

72 81 FR at 78962. 73 Id. at 78962 (Florida), 78963 (Texas). 74As noted above and discussed in the proposal, 

the original CSAPR scenario reflected projected 

implementation of CSAPR in covered states and 

presumptive source-specific BART in states where 

CSAPR did not apply for a pollutant. If Texas had 

not been expected to be covered by CSAPR for SO2, 

the CSAPR scenario would therefore have reflected 

SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs consistent with the 

implementation of presumptive source-specific SO2

BART instead of participation in CSAPR. While 

EPA projected that the CSAPR region overall would 

have substantially lower SO2 emissions under 

CSAPR than under source-specific BART, for some 

individual states, including Texas, SO2 emissions 

under source-specific BART were projected to be 

lower than under CSAPR. Thus, removing Texas 

from CSAPR for SO2 in the CSAPR-better-thanBART analytic demonstration would have resulted 

in a decrease in projected SO2 emissions in the 

CSAPR scenario as modeled for the demonstration. 

See 81 FR at 78962–63. In the proposal, the EPA 

identified the minimum amount of the projected 

decrease in Texas SO2 emissions as 127,300 tons, 

based on the difference between projected Texas 

SO2 emissions under the original CSAPR and BART 

scenarios. Id.; see also ‘‘Projected Changes in Texas 

Emissions, Fossil Generation, and Fuel Usage 

Between the Base Case, BART, and Original CSAPR 

Scenarios,’’ available in the docket for this action. 

IV. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding 

CSAPR Participation as a BART 

Alternative 

A. Summary 

As explained in the proposal and 

summarized in section II.B, the EPA 

amended the Regional Haze Rule in 

2012 to authorize states whose EGUs 

participate in CSAPR trading programs 

for a given pollutant to rely on CSAPR 

participation as a BART alternative for 

that pollutant. The CSAPR-better-thanBART rule rests on an analytic 

demonstration that implementation of 

CSAPR as expected to take effect at that 

time would achieve greater reasonable 

progress than BART toward the national 

goal of natural visibility conditions in 

Class I areas. As part of the proposal for 

this action, the EPA included a 

sensitivity analysis to the 2012 analytic 

demonstration showing that the 2012 

analysis would have supported the same 

conclusion if the actions being taken in 

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

various CSAPR Phase 2 budgets 67 had 

been reflected in the 2012 analysis. In 

this action, upon consideration of 

comments received, the EPA is 

affirming the sensitivity analysis from 

the proposal that concluded that the 

2012 analytic demonstration is still 

valid and is consequently affirming that 

there is no need for revision of the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule as a 

result of the changes in CSAPR’s 

geographic scope resulting from the 

Agency’s set of responses to the EME 

Homer City II decision. 

The original 2012 analytic 

demonstration supporting participation 

in CSAPR as a BART alternative was 

based on an air quality modeling 

analysis comparing projected visibility 

conditions at relevant locations (referred 

to in the proposal and here simply as 

‘‘Class I areas’’) under three scenarios.68

The first scenario reflected no 

implementation of either CSAPR or 

BART, the second scenario reflected 

implementation of presumptive sourcespecific BART for both SO2 and NOX at 

BART-eligible EGUs nationwide, and 

the third scenario reflected 

implementation of CSAPR in covered 

states and presumptive source-specific 

BART for each pollutant in states where 

CSAPR did not apply for that pollutant 

(the three scenarios are referred to here 

as the base case scenario, the BART 

scenario, and the original CSAPR 

scenario, respectively). The EPA used 

the results of the three scenarios to 

compare the projected visibility impacts 

of CSAPR and BART under a twopronged ‘‘better-than-BART’’ test.69 The 

first prong—a requirement that visibility 

must not decline in any Class I area 

under the proposed BART alternative— 

was evaluated by comparing the 

projected visibility conditions under the 

original CSAPR scenario and the base 

case scenario. The second prong—a 

requirement that there must be an 

overall visibility improvement on 

average across all affected Class I areas 

under the proposed BART alternative 

relative to source-specific BART—was 

evaluated by comparing the projected 

visibility conditions under the original 

CSAPR scenario and the BART scenario. 

Based on these comparisons, and also 

taking account of revisions made to 

CSAPR after the 2011 modeling but 

before or contemporaneous with the 

2012 CSAPR-better-than-BART rule, the 

EPA concluded that the original CSAPR 

scenario satisfied both prongs of the 

test. 

The EPA’s proposed sensitivity 

analysis is set forth in detail in the 

proposal for this action.70 To reiterate 

briefly, for the sensitivity analysis, the 

Agency identified a total of five changes 

in CSAPR’s geographic scope expected 

to occur as a result of actions 

responding to the D.C. Circuit’s remand: 

The removal of Florida, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina from CSAPR for 

seasonal NOX; the removal of Texas 

from CSAPR for annual NOX; and the 

removal of Texas from CSAPR for SO2.71

With respect to each of the four changes 

related to NOX, the EPA explained that 

the change would not have caused a 

sufficiently large change in the modeled 

NOX emissions in the original CSAPR 

scenario to materially alter the visibility 

impacts comparison. For North Carolina 

and South Carolina, this assessment was 

based on the fact that the states’ EGUs 

would, or were expected to, remain 

subject to CSAPR for annual NOX after 

the end of their CSAPR obligations for 

seasonal NOX.72 For Florida and Texas, 

this assessment was based on the small 

magnitudes of the differences in 

projected total NOX emissions from the 

EGUs in each of those states between 

the original CSAPR scenario and the 

relevant other modeled scenarios, 

combined with the dominance of sulfate 

impacts compared to nitrate impacts on 

visibility (especially in the South).73

With respect to the removal of Texas 

from CSAPR for SO2, the EPA explained 

that the change would have caused a 

large reduction in the Texas SO2

emissions as modeled in the original 

CSAPR scenario,74 thereby causing the 

visibility impacts comparison to support 

the Agency’s determination that CSAPR 

participation met the criteria for a BART 

alternative even more strongly than the 

comparison as originally performed in 

2012. Thus, because the only material 

change from the original 2012 analytic 

demonstration would be the relative 

visibility improvement in a revised 

CSAPR scenario resulting from the 

removal of Texas from CSAPR for SO2, 

the sensitivity analysis as proposed 

indicated that the 2012 analytic 

demonstration remains valid. 

The EPA received substantive 

comments from two parties with respect 

to the proposed sensitivity analysis. One 

commenter agrees with the EPA’s 

conclusion and with all but one detail 

of the EPA’s methodology (which, if 

changed as suggested by the commenter, 

would strengthen the Agency’s 

conclusion). The other commenter does 

not agree with either the conclusion or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45491 

75 In 2005, the EPA promulgated the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) addressing certain interstate 

air pollution reduction obligations, 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005), and amended the Regional Haze 

Rule to allow participation in CAIR to be relied on 

as a BART alternative (the CAIR-better-than-BART 

rule), 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The D.C. Circuit 

upheld the CAIR-better-than-BART rule, Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 

2006), but later found CAIR invalid and remanded 

that rule to the Agency for replacement, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). The Agency then replaced CAIR with 

CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, and replaced the CAIR-betterthan-BART rule with the CSAPR-better-than-BART 

rule, 77 FR 33642. In addition, following the 

remand of CAIR, the Agency disapproved SIP 

submissions for several states seeking to rely on 

CAIR as a BART alternative, e.g., 77 FR at 33647. 

76See supra notes 55 and 56. 77See supra note 57. 78As discussed in section III.D above, both states 

continue to participate in the CSAPR SO2 and 

annual NOX programs through FIPs while Agency 

action on their SIP submittals is pending. 79See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). 

the methodology, providing several 

reasons. The remainder of this section 

summarizes the opposing commenter’s 

principal comments on this topic and 

provides the Agency’s response. 

B. Continued CSAPR Participation by 

Georgia and South Carolina 

The commenter states that in order to 

analyze the impacts on the CSAPRbetter-than-BART analytic 

demonstration from changes caused by 

the remand, in addition to any other 

changes evaluated, the EPA must also 

evaluate the removal of Georgia and 

South Carolina from CSAPR’s SO2

programs, both because the D.C. Circuit 

remanded their SO2 budgets as invalid 

and because in the commenter’s view it 

is impermissible to rely in such a 

sensitivity analysis on mere 

commitments from those states to 

submit CSAPR SIPs in the future. 

Further, according to the commenter, 

allowing these states to continue to 

participate in CSAPR and then rely on 

such participation as a BART alternative 

after their SO2 budgets have been 

remanded would be inconsistent with 

the EPA’s previous determinations that 

states could no longer indefinitely rely 

on participation in the former Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) trading programs 

as a BART alternative after the D.C. 

Circuit found CAIR to be an invalid rule 

that must be replaced.75

The EPA disagrees with the comment 

that the Agency must consider Georgia 

and South Carolina ineligible to 

continue to participate in CSAPR’s SO2

programs as a consequence of the 

remand of their FIP budgets. The 

CSAPR regulations expressly provide 

for approval of CSAPR SIPs that meet 

certain conditions as replacements for 

CSAPR FIPs, and Georgia and South 

Carolina (as well as Alabama) have 

elected to submit such SIPs. The 

comparison that the commenter draws 

to the EPA’s previous findings that 

states may no longer rely on 

participation in CAIR as a BART 

alternative is inapt, because the basis for 

such previous findings was that CAIR 

itself (including its trading programs) 

would not exist, not that particular 

CAIR budgets were invalid. Here, the 

CSAPR trading program will still exist, 

making it possible for the states to 

continue to participate in CSAPR 

through voluntary SIPs notwithstanding 

the invalidation of the EPA’s authority 

to require compliance with the 

remanded budgets through FIPs 

addressing the states’ transport 

obligations. 

The EPA considers the comment 

about reliance on mere commitments to 

submit SIPs to be largely moot because 

in the interval between submission of 

the comment and finalization of this 

action, Georgia has submitted its SIP 

revision and South Carolina has 

submitted its proposed state regulations 

and has requested that EPA begin the 

SIP approval process under the 

Agency’s parallel processing 

procedure.76 Each of the state trading 

program rules includes a state budget 

for SO2 or annual NOX emissions equal 

to that state’s current FIP budget. To the 

extent the commenter believes that for 

purposes of a sensitivity analysis the 

Agency may rely only on a SIP that has 

been approved and not on a SIP or 

proposed state rule that has been 

submitted for EPA approval but not yet 

approved, the Agency disagrees. Both 

states’ rules take the approach of 

incorporating by reference the federal 

CSAPR trading program rules, including 

the relevant budget amounts, so there 

are no substantive differences between 

the state trading program rules being 

adopted by the states for inclusion in 

their SIPs and the federal trading 

program rules that are being replaced. 

The Agency has proposed to approve 

both states’ SIP revisions 77 and at this 

time is unaware of any reason why the 

proposed approvals should not be 

finalized. In these circumstances, the 

EPA believes it is reasonable to rely on 

the SIP submittals for purposes of 

supporting an analytic assumption that 

Georgia and South Carolina will 

continue to participate in CSAPR’s SO2

and annual NOX programs at the states’ 

current budget levels.78

C. Appropriateness of Continued 

Reliance on Original CSAPR-BetterThan-BART Analysis 

The commenter states that the 

sensitivity analysis is arbitrary because 

it is based on outdated material, and 

that instead of evaluating whether the 

2012 analytic demonstration remains 

valid, the EPA must perform an entirely 

new analytic demonstration based on a 

new air quality modeling analysis using 

more current data. 

The EPA disagrees with this 

comment. While criticizing aspects of 

the Agency’s analytic methodology, the 

commenter does not dispute that the 

sensitivity analysis as conducted by the 

EPA using that methodology shows that 

the 2012 analytic demonstration would 

have been strengthened rather than 

weakened by the changes in CSAPR’s 

geographic scope that are occurring as a 

result of the D.C. Circuit’s remand. (The 

methodological criticisms are addressed 

as the next comment below.) Further, 

the commenter offers no compelling 

support for the suggestion that, in the 

absence of any reason to doubt the 

conclusion from the 2012 analytic 

demonstration, the EPA must 

nevertheless conduct an entirely new 

demonstration. As an asserted legal 

rationale for the need for a new analysis, 

the commenter cites the Regional Haze 

Rule provisions for approval of BART 

alternatives, noting that the provision 

that the EPA followed in approving the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule requires a 

demonstration based on an air quality 

modeling analysis.79 The EPA has 

performed one such air quality 

modeling analysis and in this action has 

shown that the analysis already 

performed would continue to support a 

conclusion that CSAPR meets the 

criteria for a BART alternative 

notwithstanding changes in CSAPR’s 

geographic scope. Contrary to the 

commenter’s suggestion, the regulations 

do not say that the EPA must perform 

an entirely new analysis. Similarly, the 

commenter’s assertion that changes in 

industry data since 2011 necessitate a 

new analytic demonstration amounts to 

a call for recurring demonstrations that 

a BART alternative results in greater 

reasonable progress than BART as the 

industry evolves, rather than a one-time 

demonstration when the alternative is 

approved. The regulations include no 

such requirement for recurring 

demonstrations. 

D. Possible Changes in the Geographic 

Distribution of Emissions 

The commenter states that the EPA’s 

methodology for conducting the 

sensitivity analysis as set forth in the 

proposal failed to adequately consider 

whether changes in a revised CSAPR 

scenario regarding the geographic 

distribution of emissions across states or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45492 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

80The 127,300-ton amount was described in the 

proposal as the minimum reduction in projected 

Texas SO2 emissions because it did not reflect a 

50,500-ton increase in the Texas SO2 budget that 

occurred after the original CSAPR scenario was 

modeled. If that budget increase had been reflected 

in the original CSAPR scenario, modeled Texas 

EGU SO2 emissions in that scenario would likely 

have been higher, potentially by the full 50,500-ton 

amount. The CSAPR budget increase would have 

had no effect on Texas EGUs’ modeled SO2

emissions under BART. As a consequence, the 

127,300-ton minimum estimate of the reduction in 

projected Texas SO2 emissions caused by removing 

Texas EGUs from CSAPR for SO2, which are 

computed as the difference between Texas EGUs’ 

collective emissions in the original CSAPR scenario 

and the BART scenario, may be understated by as 

much as 50,500 tons. 

81 81 FR at 78962–64. 

82As summarized above, the Agency explained in 

the proposal that the removal of Florida, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas EGUs from 

CSAPR for either seasonal or annual NOX, as 

applicable, would not have caused sufficient 

changes in modeled NOX emissions in a revised 

CSAPR scenario to materially alter the visibility 

impacts comparison, in some instances because the 

EGUs would remain subject to another CSAPR NOX

program and in some instances because of the small 

magnitudes of the differences in projected total 

NOX emissions from the EGUs in each of those 

states between the original CSAPR scenario and the 

relevant other modeled scenarios, combined with 

the dominance of sulfate impacts compared to 

nitrate impacts on visibility (especially in the 

South). The EPA believes these same factors 

likewise indicate that the visibility impacts of any 

potential shifts in the geographic distribution of 

NOX emissions related to removal of these states 

from the CSAPR NOX programs would not be 

material to either prong of the two-pronged 

visibility impacts comparison. 

83The state- and plant-level data are derived from 

the unit-level data in three spreadsheets included 

in the final CSAPR-better-than-BART rulemaking 

record and available in the docket for this action: 

IPM Parsed File for CSAPR Base Case Scenario 2014 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729–0004), IPM Parsed File 

for National BART Scenario 2014 (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0729–0008), and IPM Parsed File for CSAPR– 

BART Scenario 2014 (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729– 

0006). 

84See supra note 74. 

85See ‘‘Projected Interstate Trading of CSAPR SO2

Group 2 Allowances in the Original CSAPR 

Scenario,’’ available in the docket for this action. 86 Id. 

87 It is possible that if the original CSAPR 

scenario that includes Texas in CSAPR for SO2 had 

been remodeled to include the 50,500 increase in 

the Texas SO2 budget described in the proposal and 

in footnote 80, Texas EGUs would have been 

projected to purchase either more or less than 

22,300 allowances from EGUs in other CSAPR SO2

Group 2 states, and that a revised CSAPR scenario 

in which Texas was removed from CSAPR for SO2

would therefore have shown the other Group 2 

states increasing their SO2 emissions by this 

different amount. Regardless of the amount or 

direction of any modeled change in Texas EGUs’ 

CSAPR allowance purchases, that change would 

generally have been matched by an equal and 

opposite change in Texas EGUs’ projected 

emissions under CSAPR, with the result that the 

overall net projected reduction in emissions caused 

by removing Texas from CSAPR for SO2 would 

continue to be at least 105,000 tons. The maximum 

amount of CSAPR SO2 allowances that Texas could 

purchase from other states and use in a given year 

without incurring 3-for-1 allowance surrender 

requirements is approximately 53,000 tons, which 

is the amount of Texas’ SO2 variability limit—the 

difference between the state’s budget and its 

assurance level—under the CSAPR regulations. See 

40 CFR 97.710(b)(7). 

within individual states might lead to 

violations of the analytic criteria that 

the EPA relied on to find that CSAPR 

qualifies as a BART alternative. In 

particular, the commenter raises the 

theoretical possibility that, in a revised 

CSAPR scenario where Texas EGUs no 

longer participate in CSAPR for SO2, 

some individual sources in other 

CSAPR states could buy additional 

allowances and increase their 

emissions, and that such increases in 

emissions in turn could cause adverse 

visibility impacts in some individual 

Class I areas (thereby violating the first 

prong of the two-pronged test described 

above). More generally, the commenter 

asserts that without new modeling the 

EPA ‘‘has no data’’ and has ‘‘simply 

assume[d]’’ that the two prongs of the 

test would be satisfied under such a 

revised scenario. 

As an initial matter, the EPA disagrees 

with the commenter’s summary 

characterization of the proposed 

sensitivity analysis as not being 

grounded in data. To the contrary, the 

Agency’s proposed conclusions 

explicitly rely on data drawn from the 

modeling results in the record for the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule. The EPA 

explained in the proposal, first, how the 

data from the earlier rulemaking record 

showed that a revised CSAPR scenario 

would reflect a projected reduction in 

Texas SO2 emissions of 127,300 tons (or 

more) 80 along with projected increases 

in Florida and Texas NOX emissions of 

at most a few thousand tons and, 

second, why it was logical to conclude 

from these projected emissions changes 

that, relative to the modeled BART and 

base case scenarios, the revised CSAPR 

scenario would have shown even larger 

visibility improvements than the 

original CSAPR scenario.81 The 

commenter provides no data of any 

kind, let alone data that might challenge 

the data presented in the proposal. 

Turning to the commenter’s more 

specific methodological criticism—that 

the Agency has not sufficiently 

considered whether shifts in the 

geographic distribution of emissions 

might lead to violations of the twopronged test—the EPA agrees that the 

potential for such shifts was not 

expressly addressed in the sensitivity 

analysis as proposed. For the final 

action, the EPA has therefore performed 

further analysis to address this 

comment, focusing on the specific 

circumstance identified by the 

commenter—shifts associated with the 

removal of Texas EGUs from CSAPR for 

SO2—because the Agency agrees that 

this is the most significant change to 

CSAPR among the actions that have 

been or are expected to be taken in 

response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand.82

The further analysis is based on stateand unit-level data disaggregated from 

the projections of electricity generation, 

fuel usage, and emissions developed for 

the base case, BART, and original 

CSAPR scenarios that were compared in 

the 2012 analytic demonstration.83

Based on this additional analysis, the 

EPA finds that, in addition to the 

projected SO2 emissions reduction of at 

least 127,300 tons in Texas identified in 

the proposal,84 a revised CSAPR 

scenario without Texas in CSAPR for 

SO2 could also reflect a projected 

aggregated increase in SO2 emissions of 

approximately 22,300 tons in the six 

other states in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

trading program (Alabama, Georgia, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South 

Carolina). The reason for this 

adjustment is that in the original CSAPR 

scenario, Texas EGUs were projected to 

emit 22,300 tons of SO2 in excess of the 

state’s SO2 budget.85 This would have 

been possible through the use of 

allowances purchased from EGUs in 

other SO2 Group 2 states. Under a 

revised CSAPR scenario where Texas 

EGUs are no longer part of the CSAPR 

trading program, Texas EGUs would no 

longer purchase the 22,300 allowances 

from the other states, and the EGUs in 

those other states could potentially use 

those allowances to increase their own 

collective SO2 emissions. Much or all of 

the total potential increase in emissions 

in the other states would be projected to 

occur in Alabama and Georgia, because 

in the original CSAPR scenario the 

collective emissions from Kansas EGUs 

were projected to already be at the 

state’s ‘‘assurance level’’—the emissions 

level above which EGUs trigger a 

CSAPR provision requiring the 

surrender of three allowances instead of 

one allowance per ton of emissions— 

and the collective emissions from 

Minnesota, Nebraska, and South 

Carolina EGUs were projected to already 

be close to their states’ respective 

assurance levels.86 After accounting for 

the potential 22,300-ton offsetting 

adjustment, the net regional SO2

reduction under the revised CSAPR 

scenario relative to the original CSAPR 

scenario would be projected to be 

approximately 105,000 tons (or more) 

instead of 127,300 tons (or more) as 

described in the proposed sensitivity 

analysis.87 For the reasons below, the 

EPA has considered both the projected 

decrease in Texas SO2 emissions and 

the projected aggregated increase in SO2


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45493 

88Although the analysis focuses on other CSAPR 

states, consistent with the concerns raised by the 

commenter, the EPA notes that absent changes in 

generation demand or relative fuel prices, removal 

of Texas from CSAPR would also be expected not 

to affect the operating decisions of EGUs in nonCSAPR states. 

89See ‘‘Projected Changes in Texas Emissions, 

Fossil Generation, and Fuel Usage Between the Base 

Case, BART, and Original CSAPR Scenarios,’’ 

available in the docket for this action. Because there 

is little difference in NOX emissions from Texas 

EGUs between the original CSAPR scenario, the 

BART scenario, and the base case scenario, id., the 

EPA considers the BART scenario a reasonable 

emissions proxy for a revised CSAPR scenario in 

which Texas EGUs would be subject to BART for 

SO2 but not for NOX. 

90See id. 

91See ‘‘Projected Changes in Unit-Level 

Emissions Between the Base Case and Original 

CSAPR Scenarios,’’ available in the docket for this 

action. 

92See id. 

93See supra note 87. 

emissions in the other states and has 

concluded that the two-pronged CSAPRbetter-than-BART test described above 

would continue to be satisfied. 

As summarized above, the first prong 

of the two-pronged test requires that 

visibility conditions must not decline in 

any Class I area. In the 2012 analytic 

demonstration, the EPA evaluated this 

prong by comparing visibility impacts at 

each affected Class I area under the 

original CSAPR scenario and the base 

case scenario. The situation identified 

by the commenter in which emissions 

under a revised CSAPR scenario might 

rise at some individual EGUs 

sufficiently to cause a decline in 

visibility at some individual Class I area 

relative to visibility conditions in the 

base case scenario—that is, without 

either CSAPR or BART—would be a 

very unusual event and likely can be 

ruled out as impossible, or nearly so, in 

a scenario such as the revised CSAPR 

scenario being considered. Under the 

base case scenario, EGUs incur no cost 

at all under CSAPR for emitting a ton of 

SO2. In contrast, under either the 

original CSAPR scenario or a revised 

CSAPR scenario, EGUs would incur 

some cost per ton of SO2 emissions 

under CSAPR, and where that new cost 

is the principal change from the base 

case scenario, EGUs that emit SO2

would generally be projected to either 

decrease or maintain their emissions 

relative to the base case scenario where 

that cost was not present. If in a revised 

CSAPR scenario, allowances are more 

plentiful and the cost incurred per ton 

of SO2 emissions therefore is less than 

the cost per ton under the original 

CSAPR scenario, some EGUs that emit 

SO2 would be projected to reduce their 

SO2 emissions by a smaller amount than 

in the original CSAPR scenario, but they 

generally would not be projected to 

significantly increase their emissions 

relative to the base case scenario. An 

exception to this general principle could 

occur if some other factor influencing 

EGUs’ operating decisions, such as 

electricity demand or relative fuel 

prices, also changed. The EPA therefore 

considered whether the removal of 

Texas from CSAPR could have been 

projected to result in any material 

change in demand for generation from 

other states or relative fuel prices in 

other states in a revised CSAPR scenario 

compared to the original CSAPR 

scenario.88

With respect to the possibility of 

changes in electricity demand in other 

states, record data show that, relative to 

the original CSAPR scenario, aggregated 

2014 generation from fossil-fired Texas 

EGUs was projected to increase by 0.2% 

in the BART scenario (which is used 

here as a proxy representing the 

operating behavior of Texas EGUs in a 

revised CSAPR scenario), indicating that 

removal of Texas EGUs from CSAPR for 

SO2 and implementation of SO2 BART 

would not be projected to result in an 

increase in emissions outside Texas 

caused by a shift in generation from 

Texas to other states.89

With respect to changes in relative 

fuel prices in other states, record data 

show that, relative to the original 

CSAPR scenario, in the BART scenario 

Texas EGUs were projected to decrease 

their use of subbituminous coal by 68 

trillion Btus (TBtu), increase their use of 

lignite by 66 TBtu, and increase their 

use of other fossil fuels (predominantly 

natural gas) by 11 TBtu.90 The changes 

in projected Texas usage of 

subbituminous coal and natural gas are 

less than 1% of the projected total 

industry usage of those fuels nationwide 

under the original CSAPR scenario, 

indicating that there is no reason to 

expect material impacts on prices or 

usage of those fuels in other states. 

Unlike subbituminous coal and natural 

gas, lignite is an inherently local fuel 

that is consumed near the point of 

extraction because the fuel’s low energy 

content per unit of weight makes 

shipment over long distances 

uneconomic. Thus, although the 

increase in Texas EGUs’ projected usage 

of lignite is fairly large (8.2% of 

projected national usage of lignite under 

the original CSAPR scenario), any 

resulting increase in the local prices of 

lignite would not be expected to affect 

the mix of fuels used in other states. 

For further confirmation of the 

applicability here of the general 

principle discussed above—namely, that 

in a modeled CSAPR scenario, EGUs 

that emit SO2 would generally be 

projected to either decrease or maintain 

their emissions and not to increase their 

emissions relative to the base case 

scenario—the EPA compared the 

projected unit-level SO2 emissions in 

the original CSAPR and base case 

scenarios for all coal-fired EGUs in the 

seven states in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

trading program. The results of the 

comparison clearly indicate that the 

general principle applies in this 

instance: 77 Units were projected to 

reduce their SO2 emissions by 1,000 

tons or more (in amounts up to 57,000 

tons), 106 units were projected to 

essentially maintain their SO2 emissions 

(increasing or decreasing by between 0 

and 1,000 tons), and 2 units were 

projected to increase their SO2

emissions by approximately 1,100 tons 

each.91 A similar comparison at the state 

level shows that collective SO2

emissions from the sets of EGUs in each 

of the seven states were also projected 

to decrease from the base case scenario 

to the original CSAPR scenario (in 

amounts ranging from 1,900 tons for 

Nebraska to 248,800 tons for 

Alabama).92 In combination with the 

data above showing that removal of 

Texas from CSAPR for SO2 would not be 

expected to cause changes in demand 

for generation or relative fuel prices in 

other states, the EPA believes that these 

data on how EGUs were projected to 

comply with CSAPR in the original 

CSAPR scenario indicate that in a 

revised CSAPR scenario where Texas is 

removed from CSAPR for SO2 and 

22,300 additional allowances (or up to 

53,000 allowances, as noted earlier 93) 

therefore become available to the EGUs 

in the other SO2 Group 2 states, few if 

any EGUs would respond to the 

availability of the additional allowances 

by increasing their emissions materially 

above their emissions in the base case 

scenario. Further, even if some EGUs 

did increase their emissions above their 

emissions in the base case scenario, 

because of the regional nature of sulfate 

formation from SO2 emissions and the 

very large decreases in SO2 emissions 

across the broader region, the EPA 

believes that any such local increase 

would be unlikely to cause localized 

visibility degradation in any Class I area 

near a CSAPR state affected by the 

removal of Texas from CSAPR for SO2. 

In consequence, the Agency finds it 

reasonable to conclude that in such a 

revised CSAPR scenario, no such Class 

I areas would experience declines in 

visibility conditions relative to the base 

case scenario. 

The second prong of the two-pronged 

test requires the average projected 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45494 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

94The CSAPR-better-than-BART record shows 

that the Class I areas most impacted by Texas were 

projected to have greater modeled visibility 

improvement in the BART scenario (on the 20% 

best days) than in the CSAPR scenario. This 

indicates that there would have been additional 

visibility improvement in a revised CSAPR scenario 

in which Texas is not in CSAPR for SO2 and is 

therefore modeled at BART SO2 levels. Note that 

the average visibility improvements across all 

affected Class I areas as computed in the original 

CSAPR and BART scenarios are much closer on the 

20% best days than on the 20% worst days. 

Therefore, in determining whether the second 

prong of the two-pronged test will be passed under 

a revised CSAPR scenario, the modeled results on 

the 20% best days are particularly important. 95CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). 

visibility improvement across all 

affected Class I areas to be greater under 

the BART alternative than under BART. 

In the proposal, the EPA proposed to 

conclude that this prong would be 

easily satisfied under the revised 

CSAPR scenario because Texas EGUs 

would be modeled in the revised 

CSAPR scenario as subject to SO2 BART 

instead of being subject to CSAPR for 

SO2, and the record data showed that 

Texas EGUs’ projected SO2 emissions 

would be at least 127,300 tons lower 

under BART than under CSAPR. As 

discussed above, based on further 

analysis the EPA concludes that the 

decrease in projected Texas SO2

emissions could potentially be partially 

offset by an increase in projected SO2

emissions in other CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

states, most likely Alabama or Georgia. 

The EPA believes that such a revised 

CSAPR scenario would continue to 

show greater average visibility 

improvement than the BART scenario 

(and greater than the original CSAPR 

scenario), again easily passing the 

second prong of the two-pronged test. 

Any reduction in visibility 

improvement in Class I areas near 

Alabama, Georgia, or the other Group 2 

states relative to the original CSAPR 

scenario would be more than offset by 

greater visibility improvement in Class 

I areas near Texas.94 Due to the regional 

nature of sulfate particulate matter 

formation, it is highly likely that, like 

the original CSAPR scenario, the revised 

CSAPR scenario would show greater 

visibility improvement on average 

across all Class I areas than the BART 

scenario. The commenters did not 

present any information to indicate 

otherwise, and the EPA is not aware of 

any such information. 

E. Validity of 2012 Analytic 

Demonstration Prior to CSAPR Changes 

Finally, the commenter asserts that 

regardless of the character of the 

sensitivity analysis itself, the original 

2012 CSAPR-better-than-BART analytic 

demonstration was arbitrary, rendering 

any sensitivity analysis performed 

regarding the original demonstration 

arbitrary. In support of this claim, the 

commenter incorporates by reference all 

criticisms of the original analytic 

demonstration contained in the 

comments submitted by the commenter 

in the original CSAPR-better-than-BART 

rulemaking as well as all criticisms 

contained in the commenter’s brief in 

the pending litigation challenging the 

CSAPR-better-than-BART rule. 

The EPA rejects these comments as 

both improperly raised and outside the 

scope of this proceeding. The EPA 

appreciates the value of public input in 

the rulemaking process and seeks to 

fulfill its legal obligation to consider 

and respond to all substantive 

comments that are ‘‘raised with 

reasonable specificity,’’ 95 but catch-all 

references to whatever statements may 

have been made in another proceeding 

do not meet this standard. Moreover, 

even if they had been properly raised, 

comments concerning the legal validity 

of the original 2012 analytic 

demonstration are beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking, which concerns only 

the sensitivity analysis addressing the 

effect on the 2012 analytic 

demonstration of changes in CSAPR’s 

geographic scope resulting from the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand (as well as the 

withdrawal of Texas CSAPR FIP 

requirements for SO2 and annual NOX

and the finding as to Texas’ remaining 

transport obligation under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS). Arguments 

concerning the original 2012 analytic 

demonstration should be, and have 

been, raised in the original CSAPRbetter-than-BART rulemaking and in the 

pending litigation over that rule. 

V. Description of Amendments to 

Regulatory Text 

In order to implement the withdrawal 

of the FIP provisions requiring Texas 

EGUs to participate in the CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program and the 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program 

with regard to emissions occurring in 

Phase 2 of those programs, the EPA is 

amending the regulatory text at 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(2), 52.39(c), 52.2283(c), and 

52.2284(c) to provide that Texas EGUs 

are subject to requirements under these 

two programs with regard to emissions 

occurring in 2015 and 2016 only. 

Conforming amendments to crossreferences are being made at 

§ 52.38(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and 

(a)(8)(iii) and § 52.39(g), (h), (i), (j), and 

(m)(3). 

The EPA is also clarifying the CSAPR 

regulations by adding the introductory 

headings ‘‘Annual emissions’’ and 

‘‘Ozone season emissions’’ to § 52.38(a) 

and (b), respectively, and by amending 

the wording of the regulatory text at 

§§ 52.38(b)(2)(i) and 52.39(b) to parallel 

the wording of the newly amended 

regulatory text at §§ 52.38(a)(2)(i) and 

52.39(c)(1). These editorial clarifications 

do not alter any existing regulatory 

requirements. 

Finally, the EPA is correcting the 

CSAPR regulations applicable to South 

Carolina EGUs by amending the 

regulatory text at § 52.2141(b) to 

reference CSAPR SO2 Group 2 

allowances and 40 CFR part 97, subpart 

DDDDD instead of CSAPR SO2 Group 1 

allowances and 40 CFR part 97, subpart 

CCCCC. The corrections make the text at 

§ 52.2141(b) consistent with the existing 

text at § 52.2141(a), and the two 

paragraphs together now correctly 

reflect the existing regulatory 

requirements applicable to South 

Carolina EGUs as already set forth at 

§ 52.39(c) and (k). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and therefore was not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not expected to be an 

Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 

because this action is not significant 

under Executive Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection activities contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0667. The 

withdrawal of the FIP provisions in this 

action will eliminate the obligations of 

Texas sources to comply with the 

existing monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements under the 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program 

and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45495 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In 

making this determination, the impact 

of concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities. An 

agency may certify that a rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden, or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This action 

withdraws existing regulatory 

requirements for some entities and does 

not impose new requirements on any 

entity. We have therefore concluded 

that this action will either relieve or 

have no net regulatory burden for all 

directly regulated small entities. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action simply eliminates certain 

federal regulatory requirements that the 

D.C. Circuit has held invalid. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This action 

simply eliminates certain federal 

regulatory requirements that the D.C. 

Circuit has held invalid. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes. This 

action simply eliminates certain federal 

regulatory requirements that the D.C. 

Circuit has held invalid. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. Consistent with the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, the 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

while developing CSAPR. A summary of 

that consultation is provided in the 

preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 

48346 (August 8, 2011). 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it simply eliminates certain 

federal regulatory requirements that the 

D.C. Circuit has held invalid. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 12898 

because it does not establish an 

environmental health or safety standard. 

This action simply eliminates certain 

federal regulatory requirements that the 

D.C. Circuit has held invalid. Consistent 

with Executive Order 12898 and the 

EPA’s environmental justice policies, 

the EPA considered effects on lowincome populations, minority 

populations, and indigenous peoples 

while developing CSAPR. The process 

and results of that consideration are 

described in the preamble for CSAPR, 

76 FR 48208, 48347–52 (August 8, 

2011). 

L. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

M. Judicial Review and Determinations 

Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d) 

CAA section 307(b)(1) indicates 

which federal appellate courts have 

venue for petitions of review of final 

actions by the EPA. This section 

provides, in part, that petitions for 

review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals if (i) the agency action 

consists of ‘‘nationally applicable 

regulations promulgated, or final action 

taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (ii) 

such action is locally or regionally 

applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ This final action is 

‘‘nationally applicable.’’ In addition, the 

EPA finds that all aspects of this action 

are based on a determination of 

‘‘nationwide scope and effect’’ within 

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

First, the EPA’s withdrawal of FIP 

requirements under the CSAPR program 

for Texas is being undertaken in 

response to a remand by the D.C. Circuit 

in litigation that challenged numerous 

aspects of CSAPR with implications for 

multiple states and resulted in the 

remand of fifteen budgets for thirteen 

states. Retaining review in the D.C. 

Circuit is appropriate and avoids the 

potential that another court is forced to 

interpret the remand order of a sister 

circuit. Also, the finding that, after the 

FIP withdrawal, Texas has no remaining 

obligation to address interstate transport 

with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS is based on a common core of 

factual findings and analyses 

concerning the transport of pollutants 

between the different states subject to 

CSAPR, which is a nationally applicable 

program. Further, this action is based on 

a determination that modifies the scope 

and effect of CSAPR; thus, any judicial 

review of this action will necessarily 

implicate the national-level policies, 

technical analyses, or interpretations 

that undergird this nationwide program. 

Second, in express consideration of 

the effect of the withdrawal of Texas FIP 

requirements accomplished through this 

final action, the EPA is affirming the 

continued validity of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4), a regulatory provision 

available to each of the 27 States whose 

sources currently participate in one or 

more CSAPR trading programs. This 

determination affects the rights and 

interests of regulated parties and other 

stakeholders throughout the eastern 

United States relying on or otherwise 

affected by that regulatory provision. 

For these reasons, this final action is 

nationally applicable and, in addition, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
45496 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

the Administrator finds that this final 

action is based on a determination of 

nationwide scope and effect for 

purposes of section 307(b)(1). Thus, 

pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions 

for review of this action must be filed 

in the D.C. Circuit within 60 days from 

the date of publication of this action in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, pursuant to CAA sections 

307(d)(1)(B), 307(d)(1)(J), and 

307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator 

determines that this action is subject to 

the provisions of section 307(d). CAA 

section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that 

section 307(d) applies to, among other 

things, ‘‘the promulgation or revision of 

an implementation plan by the 

Administrator under [CAA section 

110(c)].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B). Under 

section 307(d)(1)(J), the provisions of 

section 307(d) apply to the 

‘‘promulgation or revision of regulations 

. . . relating to . . . protection of 

visibility.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(J). 

Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the 

provisions of section 307(d) also apply 

to ‘‘such other actions as the 

Administrator may determine.’’ 42 

U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(V). The agency has 

complied with the procedural 

requirements of CAA section 307(d) 

during the course of this rulemaking. 

CAA section 307(b)(1) also provides 

that filing a petition for reconsideration 

by the Administrator of this rule does 

not affect the finality of the rule for the 

purposes of judicial review, does not 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

does not postpone the effectiveness of 

the rule. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), 

the requirements established by this 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: September 21, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 52 of chapter I of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

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. Section 52.38 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a paragraph (a) heading; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(3) introductory 

text, removing the text ‘‘(a)(2)’’ and in 

its place adding the text ‘‘(a)(2)(i) or 

(ii)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(4) introductory 

text, removing the text ‘‘(a)(2)’’ and in 

its place adding the text ‘‘(a)(2)(i)’’; 

■ e. In paragraphs (a)(5) introductory 

text and (a)(6), removing the text 

‘‘(a)(2)’’ and in its place adding the text 

‘‘(a)(2)(i)’’, and removing the text ‘‘(a)(1) 

through (4)’’ and in its place adding the 

text ‘‘(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3) and (4)’’; 

■ f. In paragraph (a)(8)(iii), removing the 

text ‘‘(a)(1) through (4)’’ and in its place 

adding the text ‘‘(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and 

(a)(3) and (4)’’; 

■ g. Adding a paragraph (b) heading; 

and 

■ h. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), after the word 

‘‘emissions’’ adding the word 

‘‘occurring’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.38 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides? 

(a) Annual emissions. * * * 

(2)(i) The provisions of subpart 

AAAAA 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 2015 

and each subsequent year: Alabama, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New 

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. 

(ii) The provisions of subpart AAAAA 

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 2015 and 2016 

only: Texas. 

* * * * * 

(b) Ozone season emissions. * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.39 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), before the colon, 

adding the text ‘‘with regard to 

emissions occurring in 2015 and each 

subsequent year’’; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ c. In paragraph (g) introductory text, 

removing the text ‘‘(c)’’ and in its place 

adding the text ‘‘(c)(1) or (2)’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (h) introductory text, 

removing the text ‘‘(c)’’ and in its place 

adding the text ‘‘(c)(1)’’; 

■ e. In paragraphs (i) introductory text 

and (j), removing the text ‘‘(c)’’ two 

times and in its place adding the text 

‘‘(c)(1)’’; and 

■ f. In paragraph (m)(3), removing the 

text ‘‘(c)’’ and in its place adding the 

text ‘‘(c)(1)’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.39 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

relating to emissions of sulfur dioxide? 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The provisions of subpart 

DDDDD 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 2015 

and each subsequent year: Alabama, 

Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

and South Carolina. 

(2) The provisions of subpart DDDDD 

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 2015 and 2016 

only: Texas. 

* * * * * 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

§ 52.2141 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 52.2141, paragraph (b) is 

amended by removing the text ‘‘Group 

1’’ two times and in its place adding the 

text ‘‘Group 2’’, and removing the text 

‘‘CCCCC’’ two times and in its place 

adding the text ‘‘DDDDD’’. 

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 5. Section 52.2283 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing 

and reserving paragraph (c)(2). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.2283 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Texas and Indian country within the 

borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the 

CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program in 

subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 45497 

chapter must comply with such 

requirements with regard to emissions 

occurring in 2015 and 2016. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 52.2284 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing 

and reserving paragraph (c)(2). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 52.2284 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of sulfur 

dioxide? 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) The owner and operator of each 

source and each unit located in the State 

of Texas and Indian country within the 

borders of the State and for which 

requirements are set forth under the 

CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program in 

subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this 

chapter must comply with such 

requirements with regard to emissions 

occurring in 2015 and 2016. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–20832 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0267; FRL–9968–62– 

Region 7] 

Approval of Implementation Plans; 

State of Iowa; Elements of the 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve elements of a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

and an amended SIP submission from 

the State of Iowa for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

Infrastructure SIPs address the 

applicable requirements of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 110, which requires 

that each state adopt and submit a SIP 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of each new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These 

SIPs are commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective November 28, 2017, without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 30, 2017. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2017–0267, to https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, KS 66219 at (913) 551–7039, or 

by email at hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

II. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is approving elements of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submission from the State of Iowa 

received on July 29, 2013. Specifically, 

EPA is approving the following 

elements of section 110(a)(2): 

(A),(B),(C),(D)(i)(II)—prevent of 

significant deterioration of air quality 

(prong 3), and (D)(ii), (E) through (H), 

and (J) through (M). A Technical 

Support Document (TSD) is included as 

part of the docket to discuss the details 

of this action, including analysis of how 

the SIP meets the applicable 110 

requirements for infrastructure SIPs. 

II. Have the requirements for approval 

of a SIP revision been met? 

The state submission has met the 

public notice requirements for SIP 

submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.102. The state initiated public 

comment from April 6, 2013, to May 8, 

2013. One comment was received and 

adequately addressed in the final SIP 

submission. This submission also 

satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 

CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as 

explained in above preamble and in 

more detail in the TSD which is part of 

this docket, the revision meets the 

substantive SIP requirements of the 

CAA, including section 110 and 

implementing regulations. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving elements of the July 

23, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission 

from the State of Iowa, which addresses 

the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. As stated above, EPA 

is approving the following elements of 

section 110(a)(2): (A),(B),(C),(D)(i)(II)— 

prevent of significant deterioration of air 

quality (prong 3), and (D)(ii), (E) through 

(H), and (J) through (M). Details of the 

submission are addressed in the TSD, 

included as part of the docket, and 

discuss this approval action. 

EPA is not taking action on section 

110(a)(2)(I). Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires 

that in the case of a plan or plan 

revision for areas designated as 

nonattainment areas, states must meet 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA, relating to SIP requirements for 

designated nonattainment areas. EPA 

does not expect infrastructure SIP 

submissions to address element (I). The 

specific SIP submissions for designated 

nonattainment areas, as required under 

CAA title I, part D, are subject to 

different submission schedules than 

those for section 110 infrastructure 

elements. EPA will take action on part 

D attainment plan SIP submissions 

through a separate rulemaking governed 

by the requirements for nonattainment 

areas, as described in part D. 

EPA is not taking action on section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, and 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 

We are publishing this direct final 

rule without a prior proposed rule 

because we view this as a 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES