Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0142-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Kentucky; 2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP Requirements
Posted Date: 2018-04-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17123-17131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08137]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0142; FRL-9976-96--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; 2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate 
Transport SIP Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Kentucky's February 28, 2018, draft State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) that was submitted by Kentucky for 
parallel processing. The good neighbor provision requires each state's 
SIP to address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts 
that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is 
proposing to approve Kentucky's draft submission demonstrating that no 
additional emission reductions are necessary to address the good 
neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS beyond those required by 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update) federal 
implementation plan (FIP). Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve 
Kentucky's draft submission as partially addressing the requirements of 
the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and resolving any 
obligation remaining under the good neighbor provision after 
promulgation of the CSAPR Update FIP. EPA is proposing this action 
because it is consistent with the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. at EPA-
R04-OAR-2018-0142 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9164 or 
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS 
that revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone 
standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Pursuant to 
CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit 
SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA 
has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose 
of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements 
of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the 
``good neighbor'' provision, which generally requires SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from 
having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to 
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or 
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any 
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting 
any air pollutant in amounts that will

[[Page 17124]]

contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to 
prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be 
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state 
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses 
only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All other infrastructure SIP elements for Kentucky for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate rulemakings. See 
78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013) and 79 FR 65143 (November 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 17, 2012, Kentucky submitted a SIP submission to EPA, 
addressing a number of the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. With respect to the interstate transport 
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA disapproved the submission, 
effective April 8, 2013 (78 FR 14681). In the notice, EPA explained 
that the disapproval of the good neighbor portion of the Commonwealth's 
infrastructure SIP submission did not trigger a mandatory duty for EPA 
to promulgate a FIP to address these requirements. Id. at 14683. Citing 
the D.C. Circuit's decision EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 
F.3d 7, 41 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EME Homer City I), EPA explained that the 
court concluded states have no obligation to make a SIP submission to 
address the good neighbor provision for a new or revised NAAQS until 
EPA first defines a state's obligations pursuant to that section. 
Therefore, because a good neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone 
standard was not at that time required, EPA indicated that its 
disapproval action would not trigger an obligation for EPA to 
promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport requirements. On 
April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing and 
vacating the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City I. EPA v. EME 
Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). EPA subsequently 
finalized a determination that the FIP obligation was triggered on the 
date of the judgment issued in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, or on 
June 2, 2014. See 81 FR 74504, 74513 (October 26, 2016).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On April 30, 2013, Sierra Club filed a petition for review 
of EPA's final action disapproving Kentucky's good neighbor SIP in 
the Sixth Circuit based on the Agency's conclusion that the FIP 
obligation was not triggered by the disapproval of Kentucky's good 
neighbor SIP. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546 (6th Cir., filed 
Apr. 30, 2013). Following the Supreme Court decision, EPA requested, 
and the Sixth Circuit granted, vacatur and remand of the portion of 
EPA's final action on Kentucky's good neighbor SIP that determined 
that the FIP obligation was not triggered by the disapproval. See 
Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546 (Mar. 13, 2015), ECF No. 
74-1. On October 24, 2016 (81 FR 74513), EPA issued a final action 
correcting the portion of the Kentucky disapproval notice indicating 
that the FIP obligation would not be triggered by the SIP 
disapproval, but rather on the date of the Supreme Court's judgment. 
EPA explained that the FIP obligation was not triggered as of the 
date of the SIP disapproval because the controlling law as of that 
date was the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City I, which held 
that states had no obligation to submit a SIP and EPA had no 
authority to issue a FIP until EPA first quantified each state's 
emission reduction obligation under the good neighbor provision. 
Rather, EPA concluded that the FIP obligation was triggered when the 
Supreme Court clarified the state and federal obligations with 
respect to the good neighbor provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2016, EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update to address the 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate 
transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504 
(October 26, 2016). In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA determined that 
air pollution transported from Kentucky would unlawfully affect other 
states' ability to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
established an ozone season nitrogen oxide (NOX) budget for 
Kentucky's electricity generating units (EGUs).\3\ In particular, EPA 
found that Kentucky was linked to four maintenance-only receptors in 
Harford County, Maryland; Richmond County, New York; Hamilton County, 
Ohio; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Kentucky EGUs meeting the 
CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs 
that require participation in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 
Program, the CSAPR sulfur dioxide (SO2) Group 1 Trading 
Program, and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading 
Program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CSAPR Update, 81 FR at 74507-08.
    \4\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2)(i), (b)(2), (b)(2)(iii); 52.39(b); 
52.940(a), (b); 52.941(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that the CSAPR FIP for Kentucky and 
20 other states may provide only a partial remedy with respect to the 
good neighbor provision requirements as to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
EPA's analysis showed persisting downwind air quality problems after 
implementation of the CSAPR Update in 2017, including two of the 
receptors to which Kentucky was linked in Harford County, Maryland, and 
Richmond County, New York. Because EPA's analysis showed persisting 
downwind air quality problems and did not assess available emissions 
reductions after 2017, EPA could not definitively conclude, without 
further analysis, that the CSAPR Update fully addressed the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision in upwind states, including 
Kentucky. See 81 FR at 74521.
    On October 27, 2017, EPA issued a memorandum \5\ with technical 
information and related analyses to assist states with developing SIPs 
to address the remaining section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the technical analysis related to the 
October 2017 Transport Memo, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to 
identify locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipates there will be 
nonattainment or maintenance problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
in the year 2023 (these are identified as nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors, respectively). This analysis used the Comprehensive Air 
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) \6\ to model the 2011 
base year, and 2023 future base case emissions scenarios to identify 
projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\ The updated modeling data released with the 
October 2017 Transport Memo is the most up-to-date information EPA has 
developed to inform the Agency's analysis of downwind air quality 
problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\8\ EPA's updated modeling for 
the 2023 future base case emissions scenarios indicates that there are 
no monitoring sites, outside of California, that are projected to have 
nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum, Stephen D. Page, Supplemental Information on the 
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air 
Action Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (October 2017 Transport Memo).
    \6\ CAMx v6.40 was the most recent public release version of 
CAMx at the time EPA updated its modeling in fall 2017. 
``Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions version 6.40 
User's Guide'' Ramboll Environ, December 2016. http://www.camx.com/.
    \7\ For the updated modeling, EPA used the construct of the 
modeling platform (i.e., modeling domain and non-emissions inputs) 
that we used for the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) modeling, 
except that the photolysis rates files were updated to be consistent 
with CAMx v6.40. The NODA Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 
Document describing the modeling platform is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/notice-data-availability-preliminary-interstate-ozone-transport-modeling-data-2015-ozone.
    \8\ October 2017 Transport Memo.

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

[[Page 17125]]

II. Kentucky's Draft SIP Submission

    On February 28, 2018, Kentucky provided a draft SIP submission to 
address the remaining interstate transport obligations for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, which contains a demonstration \9\ that the emission 
reductions required by the CSAPR Update are adequate to prohibit 
emissions within Kentucky from significantly contributing to 
nonattainment, or interfering with the maintenance, of downwind states 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This demonstration shows that, 
based on the Commonwealth's current and projected emissions, air 
quality modeling data, and on-the-books state and federal measures 
reducing ozone precursor emissions, including the CSAPR Update FIP, 
emissions from Kentucky will not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment, or interfere with the maintenance, of downwind states 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed above, EPA previously disapproved the portion 
of the Kentucky's July 17, 2012, SIP submission as it related to 
prongs 1 and 2. See 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its February 28, 2018, draft submission, Kentucky reviewed air 
quality modeling and data files that EPA disseminated in the October 
2017 Transport Memo, which indicated that the air quality problems at 
monitors to which Kentucky was linked in the CSAPR Update would be 
resolved in 2023. Kentucky's draft SIP submission agrees with the 
October 2017 Transport Memo's preliminary projections, and provides 
information intended to demonstrate that use of the modeling is 
appropriate. In addition, the draft submission contains air quality 
modeling conducted by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, that concludes that none 
of the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the CSAPR 
Update are predicted to be in nonattainment or have issues with 
maintenance in 2023. Additionally, Kentucky cites information related 
to emissions trends--such as reductions in ozone precursor emissions 
and controls on Kentucky sources--as further evidence that, after 
implementation of all on-the-books measures including those identified 
in the CSAPR Update, emissions from the Commonwealth will no longer 
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    Kentucky requests that EPA approve the draft SIP submission and 
find that Kentucky is not required to make any further reductions, 
beyond those required by the CSAPR Update, to address its statutory 
obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA is parallel processing Kentucky's draft SIP submittal. 
As discussed in more detail in Section IV, below, final approval of 
Kentucky's submission is contingent on Kentucky's submission of a 
final SIP submittal that does not differ significantly from the 
draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's Draft Submission

    In Kentucky's draft submission, the Commonwealth relies on modeling 
performed by EPA, which was summarized in the October 2017 Transport 
Memo, in support of its conclusion that the emissions reductions 
required by the CSAPR Update are adequate to prohibit emissions within 
Kentucky from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or 
interfering with the maintenance, of downwind states with respect to 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, before undertaking the specific 
analysis of Kentucky's SIP submittal, it is helpful to understand how 
EPA developed the October 2017 Transport Memorandum. EPA applied the 
same four-step framework used in previous federal regulatory actions 
addressing interstate transport of ozone pollution, including most 
recently the CSAPR Update. While some aspects of these previous 
regulatory actions have been challenged in court--and some aspects of 
these challenges have been upheld--each of these rulemakings 
essentially followed the same four-step interstate transport framework 
to quantify and implement emission reductions necessary to address the 
interstate transport requirements of the good neighbor provision. These 
steps are described in the following four paragraphs.
    (1) Identifying downwind air quality problems relative to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. EPA has historically identified downwind areas with air 
quality problems considering monitored ozone data where appropriate and 
air quality modeling projections to a future compliance year. In the 
CSAPR Update, the Agency identified not only those areas expected to be 
in nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS, but also those areas that may 
struggle to maintain the NAAQS, despite clean monitored data or 
projected attainment.
    (2) Determining which upwind states are ``linked'' to these 
identified downwind air quality problems and thereby warrant further 
analysis to determine whether their emissions violate the good neighbor 
provision. In CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, EPA identified such upwind 
states as those modeled to contribute at or above a threshold 
equivalent to one percent of the applicable NAAQS. Upwind states linked 
to one of these downwind nonattainment or maintenance areas were then 
evaluated to determine what level of emissions reductions, if any, 
should be required of each state.
    (3) For states linked to downwind air quality problems, identifying 
upwind emissions on a statewide basis that significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a standard. In all of 
EPA's prior rulemakings addressing interstate ozone pollution 
transport, the Agency apportioned emission reduction responsibility 
among multiple upwind states linked to downwind air quality problems by 
considering feasible NOX control strategies and using cost-
based and air quality-based criteria to quantify the amount of a linked 
upwind state's emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance in another state.
    (4) For states that are found to have emissions that significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS 
downwind, implementing the necessary emission reductions within the 
state. EPA has done this by requiring affected sources in upwind states 
to participate in allowance trading programs (e.g., the CSAPR 
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program) to achieve the 
necessary emission reductions.
    EPA's proposed action on Kentucky's draft submission is based on a 
finding that 2023 is a reasonable analytic year for evaluating ozone 
transport problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that 
interstate ozone transport air quality modeling projections for 2023 
indicate that Kentucky is not expected to significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
downwind states. As explained in more detail in the following 
paragraphs, EPA's selection of 2023 as a reasonable analytic year is 
supported by an assessment of attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
and feasibility for control strategies to reduce NOX in 
CSAPR Update states, including Kentucky. EPA's assessment of 
NOX control strategy feasibility prioritizes NOX 
control strategies in CSAPR Update states that would be additional to 
those strategies that were already quantified into CSAPR Update 
emissions budgets. EPA proposes that 2023 is an appropriate future 
analytic year because it is the first ozone season for which 
significant new cost-effective post-combustion controls to reduce 
NOX

[[Page 17126]]

could be feasibly installed across the CSAPR Update region, and thus 
represents the timeframe that is as expeditious as practicable for 
upwind states to implement additional emission reductions. EPA's 
analysis of steps 1 and 2 for the 2023 analytic year indicates that 
there are no expected eastern nonattainment or maintenance receptors 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this future year. Together, these findings 
support EPA's proposed approval of Kentucky's SIP submittal, which is 
based on the determination that Kentucky is not expected to 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states in 2023.

A. Additional Information Regarding Selection of an Analytic Year

    One of the first steps in conducting air quality modeling analysis 
to evaluate steps 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate transport 
framework is selecting a future analytic year. In determining the 
appropriate future analytic year for purposes of assessing remaining 
interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including 
Kentucky's, EPA considered two primary factors: Attainment dates and 
NOX control feasibility.
    First, EPA considered the downwind attainment dates for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. In North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that 
emissions reductions required by the good neighbor provision should be 
evaluated considering the relevant attainment dates of downwind 
nonattainment areas impacted by interstate transport.\11\ The next 
attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be July 20, 2021, for 
nonattainment areas classified as serious and July 20, 2027, for 
nonattainment areas classified as severe.\12\ Because the various 
attainment deadlines are in July, which is in the middle of the ozone 
monitoring season for all states, data from the calendar year prior to 
the attainment date (e.g., data from 2020 for the 2021 attainment date 
and from 2026 for the 2027 attainment date) are the last data that can 
be used to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. In all cases, the 
statute provides that areas should attain as expeditiously as 
practicable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA 
must coordinate interstate transport compliance deadlines with 
downwind attainment deadlines).
    \12\ While there are no areas (outside of California) that are 
classified as either serious or severe, these classifications (and 
the associated attainment dates) are required under the statute in 
the event that the many downwind moderate nonattainment areas fail 
to attain by their attainment date of July 20, 2018.
    \13\ See CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA considered the timeframes that may be required for 
implementing further emissions reductions as expeditiously as 
practicable. In considering potential emissions reductions, EPA notes 
that emissions levels are already expected to decline in the future 
through implementation of existing local, state and federal emissions 
reduction programs. This is an important consideration because the U.S. 
Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court have both held that EPA may 
not require emissions reductions greater than necessary to achieve 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind areas.\14\ 
Therefore, if new controls cannot be implemented feasibly for several 
years and air quality will likely be cleaner in the future, EPA should 
evaluate air quality in a future year to ensure that any potential 
emissions reductions would not over-control relative to the identified 
ozone problem. Accordingly, it is reasonable to evaluate downwind air 
quality, and identify any remaining receptors, in the year in which EPA 
expects additional emissions reductions, if any, to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 
1600-01 (2014); EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 
118, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For its analysis of NOX control feasibility, EPA 
believes that the feasibility of control strategies should reflect the 
time needed to plan for, install, and test new EGU and non-EGU 
NOX reduction strategies across multiple states. This 
conclusion is based on previous interstate ozone transport analyses 
showing that multiple upwind states are typically linked to identified 
eastern downwind ozone problems.\15\ In particular, EPA's assessment in 
the CSAPR Update indicated that, with respect to the Harford and 
Richmond receptors to which Kentucky was linked, eight other states and 
the District of Columbia would continue to be linked to the Harford 
receptor and seven other states would continue to be linked to the 
Richmond receptor after implementation of the CSAPR Update in 2017.\16\ 
Thus, to evaluate potential upwind obligations for one of several 
states linked to a common downwind air quality problem, EPA believes 
the most appropriate approach is to evaluate potential NOX 
control strategies on a regional, rather than state-specific, basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \16\ See EPA's Air Quality Assessment Tool from the CSAPR Update 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, EPA believes that the feasibility of new emissions 
controls should be considered on multiple upwind source categories in 
order to ensure that the Agency properly evaluates NOX 
reduction potential and cost-effectiveness (at step 3 of the framework) 
from all reasonable control measures (including beyond the EGU sector). 
Major NOX emissions come from multiple anthropogenic source 
categories, such as electric utilities and industrial facilities. As 
commenters noted during the development of the CSAPR Update, EGUs in 
the eastern U.S. have been the subject of regulation to address 
interstate ozone pollution transport and have made significant 
financial investments to achieve emission reductions. While EPA 
evaluates additional control feasibility for EGUs in the discussion 
that follows, non-EGU source categories may also be well-positioned to 
cost-effectively reduce NOX relative to EGUs, including non-
EGUs that currently do not report emissions to EPA under 40 CFR part 75 
and for which EPA's information concerning emissions levels, existing 
control efficiencies, and further emissions reduction potential is 
therefore more uncertain.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission Controls, 
Cost of Controls, and Time for Compliance Final technical support 
document (TSD) from the CSAPR Update in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In establishing the CSAPR Update EGU NOX ozone season 
emission budgets, EPA quantified the emission reductions achievable 
from all NOX control strategies that were feasible within 
one year and cost-effective at a marginal cost of $1,400 per ton of 
NOX removed.\18\ These EGU NOX control strategies 
were: Fully operating existing Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), 
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing, 
operational SCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs; 
installing state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls; and 
shifting generation to existing units with lower-NOX 
emission rates within the same state. For the purposes of this proposed 
action on Kentucky's draft submission, EPA considers these 
NOX control strategies to have been appropriately evaluated 
in the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Further, the Agency believes that the 
resulting CSAPR Update emission budgets are being appropriately 
implemented under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2

[[Page 17127]]

allowance trading program. Therefore, EPA has focused its further 
assessment on feasibility of controls that were deemed to be infeasible 
to install for the 2017 ozone season in the CSAPR Update for purposes 
of identifying an appropriate future analytic year rather than 
reassessing controls previously analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The CSAPR Update was signed on September 7, 2016--
approximately 8 months before the beginning of the 2017 ozone season 
on May 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA identified, but did not account for, the following two EGU 
NOX control strategies in establishing the CSAPR Update 
emissions budgets because implementation by 2017 was not considered 
feasible: Installing new SCRs and selective non-catalytic reduction 
(SNCR) controls. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that EGU SCR post-
combustion controls can achieve up to 90 percent reduction in EGU 
NOX emissions. In 2017, these controls were in widespread 
use by EGUs in the east. In the 22 state CSAPR Update region, 
approximately 59 percent of coal-fired EGU heat input and 64 percent of 
natural gas-fired EGU generation was equipped with SCR.\19\ Installing 
new SCR controls for EGUs not already equipped with such controls 
generally involves conducting an engineering review of the facility and 
awarding a procurement contract; obtaining a construction permit; 
installing the control technology; and obtaining an operating 
permit.\20\ The total time associated with navigating these steps is 
estimated to be up to 39 months for an individual power plant 
installing SCR on more than one boiler.\21\ However, for the purposes 
of evaluating the installation timing for new SCR controls at the 
fleet-level, rather than the unit-level, within the CSAPR Update 
region, EPA believes more time would be needed. As explained more fully 
below, EPA determined that a minimum of 48 months is a reasonable time 
to allow for the coordination of outages, shepherding of labor and 
material supply, and identification of retrofit projects. This time 
frame would facilitate multiple power plants with multiple boilers to 
conduct all stages of post-combustion and combustion control project 
planning, installation and operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Heat input is a proxy for the distribution of electricity 
generation across the evaluated EGUs.
    \20\ Final Report: Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting 
the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant 
Strategies (``Engineering and Economic Factors Report''), EPA-600/R-
02/073, October 2002 (available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001G0O.pdf).
    \21\ Engineering and Economic Factors Report, Table 3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Scheduled curtailment, or planned outage, for pollution control 
installation would be necessary to complete either SCR or SNCR 
projects. Given that peak demand and rule compliance would both fall in 
the ozone-season, sources would likely try to schedule installation 
projects for the shoulder season (i.e., the spring and/or fall when 
electricity demand is lower than in the peak summer season) when 
reserve margins are higher and compliance requirements are not yet in 
effect. If multiple units were under the same timeline to complete the 
retrofit projects as soon as feasible from an engineering perspective, 
this could lead to bottlenecks of scheduled outages as each unit is 
trying to start and finish in roughly the same compressed time. Thus, 
any compliance timeframe that would assume installation of new SCR or 
SNCR controls should allow multiple shoulder seasons to accommodate 
scheduling of curtailment for control installation purposes and better 
accommodate the regional nature of the program.
    In addition to the coordination of scheduled curtailment, an 
appropriate compliance timeframe should accommodate the additional 
coordination of labor and material supply necessary for any fleet-wide 
mitigation efforts. The total construction labor for an SCR system 
associated with a 500 megawatt (MW) EGU is in the range of 300,000 to 
500,000 man-hours, with boilermakers\22\ accounting for approximately 
half of this time.\23\ SNCR, while generally having shorter project 
time frames of 10 to 13 months from bid solicitation to start-up, share 
similar labor and material resources and therefore are linked to the 
timing of SCR installation planning. In recent industry surveys, one of 
the largest shortages of union craft workers was for boilermakers. This 
shortage of skilled boilermakers is expected to rise due to an 
anticipated nine percent increase in boilermaker labor demand growth by 
2026, coupled with expected retirements and comparatively low numbers 
of apprentices joining the workforce.\24\ The shortage of and demand 
for skilled labor, including other craft workers critical to pollution 
control installation, is pronounced in the manufacturing industry. The 
Association of Union Constructors (TAUC) conducted a survey of 
identified labor shortages where boilermakers were second to most 
frequently reported skilled labor market with a labor shortage.\25\ 
Moreover, the natural disasters of Hurricane Harvey and wildfires in 
2017 are expected to further tighten the labor supply market in 
manufacturing in the near term.\26\ EPA considered these tight labor 
market conditions (which were compounded by Hurricane Irma) for the 
manufacturing roles critical, and combined with fleet-level mitigation 
initiatives, would likely lead to some sequencing and staging of labor 
pool usage, rather than simultaneous construction across all efforts. 
Allowing a timeframe that exceeds the demonstrated single-unit 
installation is therefore appropriate for fleet-wide programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A boilermaker is a trained and skilled craftsman who 
produces steel fabrications (in this context, boilers).
    \23\ See Engineering and Economic Factors Report, Table 3-1.
    \24\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Boilermakers, on the internet at 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/boilermakers.htm 
(last modified on January 30, 2018).
    \25\ Union Craft Labor Supply Survey, The Association of Union 
Constructors, Exhibit 4-2 at page 29, available at https://www.tauc.org/files/2017_TAUC_UNION_CRAFT_LABOR_SUPPLY_REVISEDBC_FINAL.pdf (2017).
    \26\ Skilled Wage Growth Less Robust, Worker Shortage Still and 
Issue. Industry Week (October 23, 2017), available at http://www.industryweek.com/talent/skilled-wage-growth-less-robust-worker-shortage-still-issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to labor supply, NOX post-combustion control 
projects also require materials and equipment such as steel and cranes. 
Sheet metal workers used in steel production are also reported as 
having well above an average supply-side shortage of labor. This--
coupled with growth in steel demand estimated at three percent in 2018 
and the simultaneous growth in global economies--puts upward pressure 
on demand for steel.\27\ Similarly, cranes are critical for 
installation of SCRs, which often need to be lifted hundreds of feet in 
the air. Cranes are also facing higher demand during periods of 
economic growth with companies reporting a shortage in both equipment 
and manpower.\28\ \29\ This tightening labor, materials, and equipment 
atmosphere combined with the regional aspect of a pollution 
transportation program puts upward pressure on installation timetables 
relative to what has been historically demonstrated at the unit-level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Worldsteel Short Range Outlook (October 16, 2017), 
available at https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2017/worldsteel-Short-Range-Outlook-2017-2018.html.
    \28\ Seattle Has Most Cranes in the Country for 2nd Year in a 
Row--and Lead is Growing, Seattle Times (July 11, 2017), available 
at https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-has-most-cranes-in-the-country-for-2nd-year-in-a-row-and-lead-is-growing/.
    \29\ See Rider Levett Bucknall Crane Index--January 2018 in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time lag identified between planning and in-service date of SCR 
and SNCR operations also illustrates that conditions sometimes lead to

[[Page 17128]]

installation times of 4 years or longer. For instance, SCR projects for 
units at Ottumwa, Columbia, and Oakley Generating Station were all 
being planned by 2014. However, these projects had estimated in-service 
dates ranging between 2018 and 2021.\30\ Completed projects, when large 
in scale, also illustrate how timelines can extend beyond the bare 
minimum necessary for a single unit when the project is part of a 
larger multi-unit air quality initiative. For instance, Big Bend in 
Florida recently completed a multi-faceted project that involved adding 
SCRs to all four units, converting furnaces, making overfire air 
changes, and making windbox modifications. The completion time from the 
initial planning stages was a decade.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 2014 EIA Form 860, Schedule 6, Environmental Control 
Equipment.
    \31\ Big Bend's Multi-Unit SCR Retrofit. Power Magazine. March 
1, 2010. Available at http://www.powermag.com/big-bends-multi-unit-scr-retrofit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While individual unit-level SCR and SNCR projects can average 39 
and 10 months respectively going from bid to start up, a comprehensive 
and regional emissions reduction effort requires more time to 
accommodate the labor, materials, and outage coordination. And since 
these post-combustion control strategies share similar input resources 
and are part of regional reduction programs rather than unit-specific 
technology mandates, the timeframes for one are inherently linked to 
another. This means that SNCR projects cannot simply be put on an early 
schedule because of the reduced construction timing without impacting 
the available resources to SCRs and the potential start dates of those 
projects. Given the market and regulatory circumstances in which EPA 
evaluated this effort, it determined that 4 years would be a reasonable 
time to coordinate the planning and completion of any mitigation 
efforts necessary in this instance.
    In the CSAPR Update, EPA also evaluated the feasibility of 
NOX controls on non-EGUs in the eastern United States, 
finding that there was greater uncertainty in the assessment of non-EGU 
point-source NOX mitigation potential as compared to 
EGUs.\32\ EPA explained in the CSAPR Update that more time was required 
for states and EPA to improve non-EGU point source data, including data 
on existing control efficiencies, additional applicable pollution 
control technologies, and installation times for those control 
technologies. Further, using the best information available to EPA, 
which was submitted for public comment with the proposed CSAPR Update, 
EPA found that there were more non-EGU point sources than EGU sources 
and that these sources on average emit less NOX than EGUs. 
The implication was that there were more individual sources to control 
and there were relatively fewer emissions reductions available from 
each source, reducing the cost-effectiveness of controls. Further, 
another factor influencing uncertainty was that EPA lacks sufficient 
information on the capacity and experience of suppliers and major 
engineering firms' supply chains to determine if they would be able to 
install the required pollution controls for non-EGU sources in less 
than 48 months. Considering these factors, EPA found substantial 
uncertainty regarding whether significant aggregate NOX 
mitigation would be achievable from non-EGU point sources to address 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS any earlier than the timelines noted in EPA's 
analysis of new EGU post-combustion control feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission Controls, 
Cost of Controls, and Time for Compliance Final TSD from the CSAPR 
Update in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the CSAPR Update, EPA also identified one EGU 
NOX control strategy that was considered feasible to 
implement within one year but was not cost-effective at a marginal cost 
of $1,400 per ton of NOX removed: Specifically, turning on 
existing idled SNCRs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA identified a marginal 
cost of $3,400 per ton as the level of uniform control stringency that 
represents turning on and fully operating idled SNCRs.\33\ However, the 
CSAPR Update finalized emission budgets using $1,400 per ton control 
stringency, finding that this level of stringency represented the 
control level at which incremental EGU NOX reductions and 
corresponding downwind ozone air quality improvements were maximized 
with respect to marginal cost. In finding that use of the $1,400 
control cost level was appropriate, EPA established that the more 
stringent emission budget level reflecting $3,400 per ton (representing 
turning on idled SNCR) yielded fewer additional emission reductions and 
fewer air quality improvements relative to the increase in control 
costs. In other words, based on information available at that time, 
establishing emission budgets at $3,400 per ton was not determined to 
be cost-effective for addressing good neighbor provision obligations 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74550 (Oct. 26, 2016). EPA believes 
that its assessment of turning on and fully operating SNCRs was 
appropriately evaluated in the CSAPR Update with respect to addressing 
interstate ozone pollution transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
Accordingly, in this proposal EPA is not prioritizing the assessment of 
this control strategy in terms of identifying an appropriate future 
analytic year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final Rule 
TSD, docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0554, available at 
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to assume that 
planning for, installing, and commencing operation of new controls for 
both EGUs and non-EGUs would take up to 48 months following 
promulgation of a final rule requiring appropriate emission reductions. 
Specifically, EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume that the 
installation of new post-combustion controls for state- or regional-
level fleets of EGUs or controls for non-EGU point sources may take up 
to 4 years following promulgation of a final rule.\34\ For purposes of 
conducting updated modeling to determine in what year future emissions 
reductions might be implemented, EPA, therefore, considered the 
timeframe in which a future rulemaking that might require such 
emissions reductions would likely be finalized. While EPA is subject to 
several statutory and court-ordered deadlines to address the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
EPA does not believe that it is feasible, at this point, to finalize 
action requiring emission reductions for any state prior to the start 
of the 2018 ozone season (i.e., May 1, 2018).\35\ Accordingly, 
implementation of any of the control strategies considered herein is 
likely not feasible until during or after the 2022 ozone season. 
Considering the time to implement the controls with the time to 
promulgate a final rule, EPA believes that such reductions are unlikely 
to be implemented for a full ozone season until 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 81 FR 74562 (October 26, 2016).
    \35\ Using the 2023 analytic year also allowed EPA to begin the 
updated analysis using the data sets originally developed for the 
January 2017 NODA (82 FR 1733, January 6, 2017), which we revised in 
response to stakeholder feedback. Accordingly, EPA initiated its 
analysis more quickly than if a different year had been chosen, 
which might have delayed subsequent rulemaking actions and therefore 
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 2023 is later than the next attainment date for nonattainment 
areas classified as Serious (July 20, 2021), as explained earlier, EPA 
does not believe it is likely that emissions control requirements could 
be promulgated and implemented by the serious area attainment date. 
Likewise, EPA also

[[Page 17129]]

believes that it would not be reasonable to assume that emissions 
reductions could be postponed to the attainment date for nonattainment 
areas classified as severe (July 20, 2027) because the statute 
instructs states to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 
Accordingly, EPA believes implementation of additional emission 
reductions would be as expeditiously as practicable in light of 
relevant attainment dates.
    In conclusion, in selecting its future analytic year for the air 
quality modeling, EPA balanced considerations such as attainment dates 
in downwind states, including the obligation to attain as expeditiously 
as practicable, EPA's obligation to avoid unnecessary over-control of 
upwind state emissions, the timeframe in which any necessary emissions 
reductions could be feasibly implemented, and the timeframe required 
for rulemaking to impose any such emissions reductions that might be 
required. In light of these considerations, EPA believes that 2023 is a 
reasonable year to assess downwind air quality to evaluate any 
remaining requirements under the good neighbor provision for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS.

B. EPA's Air Quality Modeling

    EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx 
v6.40) \36\ for modeling the updated emissions in 2011 and 2023.\37\ 
EPA used outputs from the 2011 and 2023 model simulations to project 
base period 2009-2013 average and maximum ozone design values to 2023 
at monitoring sites nationwide. EPA's modeling guidance \38\ recommends 
that model predictions from the ``3 x 3'' array of grid cells 
surrounding the location of the monitoring site be used in the 
projection of future year design values. EPA used this approach for 
projecting design values for the updated 2023 modeling. In addition, in 
light of comments on the January 2017 NODA and other analyses, EPA also 
projected 2023 design values based on a modified version of this 
approach for those monitoring sites located in coastal areas. In brief, 
in the alternative approach, EPA eliminated from the design value 
calculations those modeling data in grid cells not containing a 
monitoring site that are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent 
of the land use in the grid cell is water).39 40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ CAMx v6.40 was the most recent public release version of 
CAMx at the time EPA updated its modeling in Fall 2017. 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension version 6.40 User's 
Guide,'' Ramboll Environ, December 2016, available at http://www.camx.com/. For the emissions information, see TSD: Additional 
Updates to Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions 
Modeling Platform for the Year 2023, October 2017. Available at 
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform.
    \37\ For the updated modeling, EPA used the construct of the 
modeling platform (i.e., modeling domain and non-emissions inputs) 
that we used for the NODA modeling, except that the photolysis rates 
files were updated to be consistent with CAMx v6.40. The NODA Air 
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document describing the modeling 
platform is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/notice-data-availability-preliminary-interstate-ozone-transport-modeling-data-2015-ozone.
    \38\ Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2s, and Regional Haze (Dec. 13, 2014), 
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
    \39\ A model grid cell is identified as a ``water'' cell if more 
than 50 percent of the grid cell is water based on the 2006 National 
Land Cover Database. Grid cells that meet this criterion are treated 
as entirely over water in the Weather Research Forecast (WRF) 
modeling used to develop the 2011 meteorology for EPA's air quality 
modeling.
    \40\ The base period and 2023 average and maximum design values 
at individual monitoring sites for both the ``3 x 3'' approach and 
the alternative approach affecting coastal sites are available in a 
file at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/october-2017-memo-and-information-interstate-transport-sips-2008-ozone-naaqs. This file 
also contains 2014-2016 measured design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When identifying areas with potential downwind air quality 
problems, EPA's updated modeling used the same ``receptor'' definitions 
as those developed during the CSAPR rulemaking process and used in the 
CSAPR Update.\41\ That is, EPA identified nonattainment receptors as 
those monitoring sites with current measured values exceeding the NAAQS 
that also have projected (i.e., in 2023) average design values 
exceeding the NAAQS. EPA identified maintenance receptors as those 
monitoring sites with current measured values below the NAAQS and 
projected average and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. EPA 
also identified as maintenance receptors those monitoring sites with 
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected 
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. As with past application of 
receptor definitions, EPA considered all nonattainment receptors to 
also be maintenance receptors because a monitoring site with a 
projected average design value above the standard necessarily also has 
a projected maximum design value above the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 81 FR 74530 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2023 updated modeling, using either the ``3 x 3'' approach or 
the alternative approach described above for projecting design values 
for monitoring sites in coastal areas, indicates that there are no 
monitoring sites outside of California that are projected to have 
nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS in 2023.\42\ Specifically for Kentucky, EPA's modeling for the 
CSAPR Update showed that emissions from Kentucky were linked to 2017 
maintenance receptors in Harford Co., MD, Hamilton Co., OH, 
Philadelphia Co., PA, and Richmond Co., NY. As indicated above, EPA's 
updated 2023 modeling shows that these monitoring sites--along with all 
other sites outside of California--will have nonattainment and/or 
maintenance problems resolved with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ This information is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/october-2017-memo-and-information-interstate-transport-sips-2008-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusions

    As discussed above, Kentucky's draft submission demonstrates that 
emission activities from the State will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in any other state after implementation of all on-the-books 
measures, including the CSAPR Update. EPA's modeling indicates that 
there are no monitoring sites (outside of California) that are 
projected to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023, and EPA's analysis supports the use of 
2023 as the proper analytic year. Kentucky has provided information 
that shows the use of this modeling is appropriate in this context, 
such as emissions trends data and information about on-the-books 
controls that supports the likelihood of reduced emissions from 
Kentucky between 2017 and 2023. For example, Kentucky's submission 
notes that retirements of coal-fired units at the E.W. Brown Generating 
Station and the Elmer Smith Plant are planned to occur before 2023, 
which means that emissions of NOX from Kentucky sources will 
be even lower than EPA's modeling projects. In addition, Kentucky's 
draft submission contains air quality modeling conducted by Alpine 
Geophysics, LLC, that similarly concludes that none of the 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the CSAPR Update 
are predicted to be in nonattainment or have issues with maintenance in 
2023.
    Because Kentucky is not linked to any downwind nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors in 2023, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 
draft SIP submission and to determine that--after implementation of all 
on-the-books measures, including the CSAPR

[[Page 17130]]

Update--emissions from the Commonwealth will no longer contribute 
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.HD1P>IV. Parallel Processing
    Parallel processing refers to a concurrent state and federal 
proposed rulemaking action. Generally, the state submits a copy of the 
proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its 
public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is 
published in the Federal Register during the same timeframe that the 
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA then provide for 
concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal 
action, respectively. If the state's formal SIP revision is changed 
from the draft SIP revision, EPA will evaluate those changes and may 
publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. A final rulemaking 
action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted 
by Kentucky and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the 
SIP.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air 
Quality (DAQ), requested parallel processing of the February 28, 2018 
draft SIP revision regarding the ``good neighbor'' provision of the 
CAA. This revision was noticed for public comment by the Commonwealth 
on March 1, 2018, and is not yet state-effective. Through this proposed 
rulemaking, EPA is proposing parallel approval of this draft SIP 
revision.
    Once the February 28, 2018, draft revision is state-effective, 
Kentucky will need to provide EPA with a formal SIP revision that meets 
the requirements outlined in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V ``Criteria for 
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.'' After Kentucky 
submits the formal SIP revision (including a response to any public 
comments raised during the State's public participation process), EPA 
will evaluate the revision. If the formal SIP revision is changed from 
the draft SIP revision, EPA will evaluate those changes for 
significance. If any such changes are found by EPA to be significant, 
then the Agency intends to re-propose the action based upon the revised 
submission.
    While EPA may not be able to have a concurrent public comment 
process with the Commonwealth, the DAQ-requested parallel processing 
allows EPA to begin to take action on the Commonwealth's draft SIP 
submission in advance of the formal SIP submission. As stated above, 
the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP 
submission has been: (1) Adopted by Kentucky; (2) submitted formally to 
EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated for changes.

V. EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's February 28, 2018, draft SIP 
submission and to find that Kentucky is not required to make any 
further reductions, beyond those required by the CSAPR Update, to 
address its statutory obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If EPA finalizes approval of this 
draft submission, Kentucky's obligations under 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) will 
be fully addressed through the combination of the CSAPR Update FIP and 
the demonstration showing that no further reductions are necessary. As 
a result, EPA is also proposing to amend the regulatory text at 40 CFR 
52.940(b)(2) to reflect that the CSAPR Update represents a full remedy 
with respect to Kentucky's transport obligation for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed action.
    EPA's proposed approval is contingent on Kentucky's submission of a 
final SIP revision that does not differ significantly from the February 
28, 2018 draft. Should Kentucky not submit such a final SIP revision to 
EPA or should EPA not be able to approve a final revision, EPA will 
undertake further action to address any outstanding obligations that 
Kentucky may have under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
The Agency has made the preliminary determination that this proposed 
action is consistent with the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

[[Page 17131]]

    Dated: April 9. 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-08137 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P