Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 75705-75778 [2015-29796]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 232
December 3, 2015
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS;
Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75706
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of
40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97
consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9935–25–
OAR]
receives a copy of your comments on or
before January 4, 2016.
RIN 2060–AS05
Public hearing. The EPA will be
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update
holding one public hearing on the
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update for the 2008 Ozone National
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
Agency (EPA).
hearing will be held to accept oral
ACTION: Proposed rule.
comments on the proposal. The hearing
SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this
will be held on December 17, 2015 in
proposal is to address interstate air
Washington, DC. The hearing will begin
quality impacts with respect to the 2008 at 9 a.m. EST and will conclude at 8
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
p.m. EST. Additional information for
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA
this public hearing is available in a
promulgated the Cross-State Air
separate Federal Register notice and at
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011,
https://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/
to address interstate transport of ozone
proposed-cross-state-air-pollutionpollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under update-rule.
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
EPA is proposing to update CSAPR to
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
address interstate emission transport
OAR–2015–0500, to the Federal
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. eRulemaking Portal: https://
This proposal also responds to the July
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
28, 2015 remand by the Court of
instructions for submitting comments.
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Once submitted, comments cannot be
Circuit of certain states’ ozone-season
edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions
publish any comment received to its
budgets established by CSAPR. This
public docket. Do not submit
proposal also updates the status of
electronically any information you
certain states’ outstanding interstate
ozone transport obligations with respect consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, for which
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
CSAPR provided a partial remedy.
This proposal finds that ozone season Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
emissions of NOX in 23 eastern states
affect the ability of downwind states to
comment. The written comment is
attain and maintain the 2008 ozone
considered the official comment and
NAAQS. These emissions can be
should include discussion of all points
transported downwind as NOX or, after
you wish to make. The EPA will
transformation in the atmosphere, as
generally not consider comments or
ozone. For these 23 eastern states, the
comment contents located outside of the
EPA proposes to issue Federal
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
Implementation Plans (FIPs) that
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
generally update the existing CSAPR
additional submission methods, the full
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets
EPA public comment policy,
for electricity generating units (EGUs)
information about CBI or multimedia
and implement these budgets via the
submissions, and general guidance on
CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowance
making effective comments, please visit
trading program. The EPA would
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
finalize a FIP for any state that does not
commenting-epa-dockets.
have an approved SIP addressing its
contribution by the date this rule is
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
finalized. The EPA is proposing
David Risley, Clean Air Markets
implementation starting with the 2017
Division, Office of Atmospheric
ozone season. In conjunction with other Programs (Mail Code 6204M),
federal and state actions, these
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
requirements would assist downwind
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
states in the eastern United States in
DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
attaining and maintaining the 2008
343–9177; email address: Risley.David@
ozone standard.
epa.gov.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 19, 2016. Under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Preamble Glossary of Terms and
Abbreviations
The following are abbreviations of
terms used in the preamble.
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FR Federal Register
GWh Gigawatt hours
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
Km Kilometer
lb/mmBtu Pounds per Million British
Thermal Unit
LNB Low-NOX Burners
mmBtu Pounds per Million British Thermal
Unit
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
NBP NOX Budget Trading Program
NEI National Emission Inventory
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
OFA Overfire Air
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PPB Parts Per Billion
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SC–CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions
SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TSD Technical Support Document
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Major Provisions
C. Benefits and Costs
II. General Information
A. To Whom Does the Proposed Action
Apply
III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and Overall
Approach for the Proposed Rule
A. The Interstate Transport Challenge
Under the 2008 Ozone Standard
1. Background on the Overall Nature of the
Interstate Ozone Transport Problem
2. Events Affecting Application of the
Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS
B. Proposed Approach To Address Ozone
Transport Under the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS via FIPS
1. The CSAPR Framework
2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of
Transport Obligation
3. Why We Focus on Eastern States
4. Short-Term NOX Emissions
C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
D. Addressing the Status of Outstanding
Transport Obligations for the 1997
Ozone NAAQS
IV. Legal Authority
A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed Rule
1. Statutory Authority
2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered by
the Proposed Rule
V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality and
Upwind-State Contributions
A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling
Platform
B. Emission Inventories
1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data
Sets
2. Development of Emission Inventories for
EGUs
3. Development of Emission Inventories for
Non-EGU Point Sources
4. Development of Emission Inventories for
Onroad Mobile Sources
5. Development of Emission Inventories for
Commercial Marine Category 3 (Vessel)
6. Development of Emission Inventories for
Other Nonroad Mobile Sources
7. Development of Emission Inventories for
Nonpoint Sources
C. Air Quality Modeling to Identify
Nonattainment and Maintenance
Receptors
D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind
States
1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify
Upwind State Contributions
2. Application of Screening Threshold
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU NOX
Reduction Potential to Reduce Interstate
Ozone Transport for the 2008 NAAQS
A. Introduction
B. NOX Mitigation Strategies
1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for
Assessment
D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX Reductions,
and Air Quality
E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets
VII. Implementation Using the Existing
CSAPR Ozone-Season Allowance
Trading Program and Relationship to
Other Rules
A. Background
B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements of
the CSAPR Trading Programs
1. Applicability
2. State Budgets
3. Allocations of Emission Allowances
4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels,
and Penalties
5. Implementation Approaches for
Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX
Ozone-Season Program to Address
Transport for a Newer NAAQS
6. Compliance Deadlines
7. Monitoring and Reporting and the
Allowance Management System
8. Recordation of Allowances
C. Submitting a SIP
1. 2018 SIP Option
2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option
3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the
CSAPR Trading Program
4. Submitting a SIP to Participate in
CSAPR for States Not Included in This
Proposal
D. Title V Permitting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
E. Relationship to Other Emission Trading
and Ozone Transport Programs
1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR
Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain
Program, NOX SIP Call, 176A Petition,
and Other State Implementation Plans
2. Other Federal Rulemakings
VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the
Proposed Rule
IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to the
Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs and
CSAPR Trading Program
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1)
and (d)
I. Executive Summary
The EPA promulgated the original
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
on July 6, 2011, to address interstate
ozone transport under the 1997 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to
update CSAPR to address interstate
emission transport with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone
NAAQS is an 8-hour standard that was
set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 73
FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
reduce interstate emission transport that
significantly contributes to
nonattainment, or interferes with
maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in the eastern U.S. To achieve this goal,
this proposal would further limit ozone
season (May 1 through September 30)
NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGUs) in 23 eastern states.
Ozone causes a variety of negative
effects on human health, vegetation, and
ecosystems. In humans, acute and
chronic exposure to ozone is associated
with premature mortality and a number
of morbidity effects, such as asthma
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75707
exacerbation. Ozone exposure can also
negatively impact ecosystems.
Studies have established that ozone
occurs on a regional scale (i.e.,
thousands of kilometers) over much of
the eastern U.S., with elevated
concentrations occurring in rural as well
as metropolitan areas. To reduce this
regional-scale ozone transport,
assessments of ozone control
approaches have concluded that NOX
control strategies are most effective.
Further, studies have found that EGU
NOX emission reductions can be
effective in reducing individual 8-hour
peak ozone concentrations and in
reducing 8-hour peak ozone
concentrations averaged across the
ozone season.1 Specifically, studies
indicate that EGUs’ emissions, which
are generally released higher in the air
column through tall stacks and are
significant in quantity, may
disproportionately contribute to longrange transport of ozone pollution on a
per-ton basis.2
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), sometimes
called the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’
requires states 3 to prohibit emissions
that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with
respect to any primary or secondary
NAAQS.
The EPA originally finalized CSAPR
on July 6, 2011. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses the
1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS.4 (See section IV for a
discussion of CSAPR litigation and
implementation.)
CSAPR provides a 4-step process to
address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for ozone or PM2.5
standards: (1) Identifying downwind
receptors that are expected to have
problems attaining or maintaining clean
air standards (i.e., NAAQS); (2)
determining which upwind states
contribute to these identified problems
in amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to
the downwind air quality problems; (3)
1 Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of regional
NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8-hour ozone
concentrations in the Washington, DC;
Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs.
‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions
to ozone and fine particulate matter-related
mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’.
2 Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate to
Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern USA.’’
3 The term ‘‘state’’ has the same meaning as
provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically
includes the District of Columbia.
4 CSAPR did not evaluate the 2008 ozone
standard because the 2008 ozone NAAQS was
under reconsideration during the analytic work for
the rule.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75708
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for states linked to downwind air
quality problems, identifying upwind
emissions that significantly contribute
to downwind nonattainment or interfere
with downwind maintenance of a
standard by quantifying available
upwind emission reductions and
apportioning upwind responsibility
among linked states; and (4) for states
that are found to have emissions that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind,
reducing the identified upwind
emissions via regional emissions
allowance trading programs. Each time
the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS are revised,
this process can be applied for the new
NAAQS. In this action, the EPA
proposes to apply this 4-step process to
update CSAPR with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
Application of this process with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
provides the analytic basis for proposing
to further limit ozone season EGU NOX
emissions in 23 eastern states. However,
the EPA seeks comment on this
proposal from all states and
stakeholders.
The requirements of this proposal are
in addition to existing, on-the-books
EPA and state environmental
regulations, including the Clean Power
Plan (CPP), which is included in the
base case for this proposal. On August
3, 2015, President Obama and EPA
announced the Clean Power Plan—a
historic and important action on
emissions that contribute to climate
change. The CPP reduces carbon
pollution from the power sector. Due to
the compliance timeframes of the CPP,
the EPA does not anticipate significant
interactions with the CPP and the nearterm ozone season EGU NOX emission
reduction requirements under this
proposal. However, states and utilities
will be able to make their compliance
plans with both programs in mind.
Further discussion of the CPP is
provided later in this proposal.
In addition to reducing interstate
ozone transport with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS, this proposal also
addresses the status of outstanding
interstate ozone transport obligations
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Under CSAPR, the EPA promulgated
FIPs for 25 states to address ozone
transport under the 1997 NAAQS. For
11 of these states,5 in the 2011 final rule,
CSAPR quantified ozone season NOX
emission reductions that were not
5 Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Tennessee, and Texas. (See CSAPR Final Rule, 76
FR at 48220, and the CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76
FR at 80760, December 27, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
necessarily sufficient to eliminate all
significant contribution to downwind
nonattainment or interference with
downwind maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS downwind. Relying on
base case modeling completed for this
proposed rulemaking, this action
proposes to find that the reductions
required by those 11 FIPs were in fact
sufficient to eliminate such significant
contributions to downwind air quality
problems for that standard.
This action also responds to the July
28, 2015 opinion of the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) remanding without
vacatur 11 states’ CSAPR phase 2 NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No.
795 F.3d 118, 129–30, 138 (EME Homer
City II). This action proposes to respond
to that remand by replacing the budgets
invalidated by the D.C. Circuit for nine
states and by removing two states from
the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program.6
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
strengthened the ground-level ozone
NAAQS, based on extensive scientific
evidence about ozone’s effects on public
health and welfare. This proposal to
reduce interstate emission transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is a separate and distinct regulatory
action and is not meant to address the
CAA’s good neighbor provision with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS final
rule.
The Clean Air Act gives states the
responsibility to address interstate
pollution transport through good
neighbor State Implementation Plans
(SIPs). The EPA supports state efforts to
submit good neighbor SIPs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and has shared
information with states to facilitate such
SIP submittals. However, in the event
that good neighbor SIPs are not
submitted or cannot be approved, this
rulemaking proposes Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs), as
required under section 110(c)(1) of the
CAA, to establish and implement EGU
NOX reductions identified in this rule.
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published
a rule finding that 24 states 7 failed to
make complete submissions that
6 The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets
for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia. The EPA proposes to remove Florida
and South Carolina from the CSAPR ozone-season
NOX trading program.
7 The states included in this finding of failure to
submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate
transport of pollution as to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July
13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015).
The finding action triggered a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to
address the good neighbor provision for
these states by August 12, 2017.
The EPA would finalize a FIP for a
state that we find has failed to submit
a complete good neighbor SIP or for
which we issue a final rule
disapproving its good neighbor SIP.
The EPA proposes to align
implementation of this proposed rule
with relevant attainment dates for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, as required by the
D.C. Circuit’s decision North Carolina v.
EPA.8 The EPA’s final 2008 Ozone
NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule 9
revised the attainment deadline for
ozone nonattainment areas currently
designated as moderate from December
2018 to July 2018 in accordance with
the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v.
EPA.10 Because July 2018 falls during
the 2018 ozone season, the 2017 ozone
season will be the last full season from
which data can be used to determine
attainment of the NAAQS by the July
2018 attainment date. We believe that
North Carolina compels the EPA to
identify upwind reductions and
implementation programs to achieve
these reductions, to the extent possible,
for the 2017 ozone season.
In order to apply the first and second
steps of the CSAPR 4-step process to
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA used air quality
modeling to project ozone
concentrations at air quality monitoring
sites to 2017. The EPA evaluated these
modeling projections for the air quality
monitoring sites and considered current
ozone monitoring data at these sites to
identify receptors that are anticipated to
have problems attaining or maintaining
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA then
used air quality modeling to evaluate
contributions from upwind states to
these downwind receptors.
CSAPR and previous federal transport
rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)—
discussed in detail below—addressed
collective contributions of ozone
pollution from states in the eastern U.S.
These rules did not address
contributions in the 11 western
8 531 F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding
that EPA must coordinate interstate transport
compliance deadlines with downwind attainment
deadlines).
9 80 FR 12264, 12268; 40 CFR 51.1103.
10 777 F.3d 456, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
contiguous United States.11 There may
be additional criteria to evaluate
regarding collective contribution of
transported air pollution in the West,
such as those raised in EPA-state
meetings to discuss approaches for
determining how emissions in upwind
states impact air quality in downwind
states.12 Given that the near-term 2017
implementation timeframe constrains
the opportunity to conduct evaluations
of additional criteria, the EPA proposes
to focus this rulemaking on eastern
states. This focus would not relieve
western states of obligations to address
interstate transport under the Act. The
EPA and western states, working
together, would continue to evaluate
interstate transport on a case-by-case
basis. While the EPA proposes to focus
this rulemaking on eastern states, we
seek comment on whether to include
western states in this rule.
To apply the third step of the 4-step
process, the EPA assessed ozone season
NOX reductions that are achievable for
the 2017 ozone season. This assessment
reveals that there is significant EGU
NOX reduction potential that can be
achieved for 2017 at reasonable cost,
which would make meaningful and
timely improvements in ozone air
quality. The EPA applied a multi-factor
test to evaluate EGU NOX reduction
potential for 2017 and proposes to
quantify EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets reflecting emission
reductions from cost-effective pollution
control measures achievable for the
2017 ozone season (estimated to obtain
NOX reductions at a uniform cost of
approximately $1,300 per ton).
The EPA is not proposing to quantify
non-EGU emission reductions to reduce
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS at this time because we
are uncertain that significant NOX
mitigation is achievable from non-EGUs
for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA will
continue to evaluate whether non-EGU
emission reductions can be achieved on
a longer time-frame at a future date.
However, as explained later in this
document, this proposal seeks comment
on a preliminary evaluation of
stationary non-EGU NOX mitigation
potential and on allowing a state to
include legacy NOX SIP Call non-EGUs
in the CSAPR trading program by
adopting a SIP revision that the EPA
would approve as modifying the CSAPR
11 For the purpose of this action, the western U.S.
(or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous
states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
12 For example, EPA-State meetings held in
Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and
Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
trading program provisions with regard
to that state.
To evaluate full elimination of a
state’s significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone
season NOX reductions should both be
evaluated. To the extent air quality
impacts persist after implementation of
the NOX reductions identified in this
rulemaking, a final judgment on
whether the proposed EGU NOX
reductions represent a full or partial
elimination of a state’s good neighbor
obligation for the 2008 NAAQS is
therefore subject to an evaluation of the
contribution to interstate transport from
additional non-EGU emission sectors.
However, the EPA believes that it is
beneficial to implement, without further
delay, EGU NOX reductions since they
are achievable in the near term.
Generally, notwithstanding that
additional reductions may be required
to fully address the states’ interstate
transport obligations, the proposed NOX
emission reductions are needed for
these states to eliminate their significant
contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS and needed for
downwind states with ozone
nonattainment areas that are required to
attain the standard by 2018.13
At the same time, the EPA also notes
that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA
only requires upwind states to prohibit
emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
other states. It does not shift to upwind
states the full responsibility for ensuring
that all areas in other states attain and
maintain the NAAQS. Downwind states
also have control responsibilities
because, among other things, the Act
requires each state to adopt enforceable
plans to attain and maintain air quality
standards. The requirements established
for upwind states through this proposed
rule will supplement downwind states’
local emission control strategies that, in
conjunction with the certainty on
maximum allowable upwind state EGU
emissions that this proposed rule would
provide, promote attainment and
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
To meet the fourth step of the 4-step
process (i.e., implementation) the
proposed FIPs contain enforceable
measures necessary to achieve the
emission reductions in each state. The
proposed FIPs would require power
plants in affected states (i.e., states that
13 The proposed requirements for one state, North
Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s
significant contribution to downwind air quality
problems.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75709
significantly contribute to ozone
transport in the east) to participate in
the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
allowance trading program (as modified
by the proposed changes described
elsewhere in this notice). CSAPR’s
trading programs and EPA’s prior
emissions trading programs provide a
proven implementation framework for
achieving emission reductions. In
addition to providing environmental
certainty (i.e., a cap on emissions), these
programs also provide regulated sources
with flexibility in choosing compliance
strategies. By using the existing CSAPR
NOX ozone-season allowance trading
program, the EPA is proposing to use an
implementation framework that was
shaped by notice and comment in
previous rulemakings and reflects the
evolution of these programs in response
to court decisions. Further, this program
is familiar to the EGUs that will be
regulated under this rule, which means
that monitoring, reporting, and
compliance will be done as it already is
under CSAPR’s current ozone-season
and annual programs.14
These FIP requirements, if finalized,
would begin with the 2017 ozone season
and would continue for subsequent
ozone seasons to ensure that upwind
states included in this proposed rule
meet their Clean Air Act obligation to
address interstate emissions transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for 2017 and future years. To the extent
that emissions in an included state
would otherwise exceed the
promulgated emission level, these good
neighbor EGU emissions limits will
ensure that future emissions are
consistent with states’ ongoing good
neighbor obligations. To the extent that
emissions in an included state would be
reduced for other reasons, for example
planned lower-NOX emitting generation
coming online, then those actions will
help the state comply with its good
neighbor requirements.
Generally, for states that would be
affected by one of the FIPs proposed in
this action and that are already included
in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program to address interstate ozone
transport for the 1997 NAAQS, this
action proposes to revise the existing
part 97 regulations that define that
program to incorporate lower EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets for
each of the affected states in order to
reduce ozone transport for the 2008
14 One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR
ozone season requirement under this proposal.
Kansas currently participates in the CSAPR NOX
and SO2 annual programs. The remaining 22 states
were included in the original CSAPR ozone-season
program as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75710
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ozone NAAQS.15 If finalized,
compliance with these lower emissions
budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
would also satisfy compliance with the
existing higher emissions budgets for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the
EPA proposes to replace the existing
CSAPR emissions budgets (i.e. for the
1997 ozone NAAQS) for the affected
states with the lower emissions budgets
proposed to reduce ozone transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Compliance
with the final lower emissions budgets
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would
supersede compliance with the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season budgets for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. This action would
therefore respond to the remand of EME
Homer City II with respect to the NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets for nine
states 16 by replacing the budgets
declared invalid by the court with
revised budgets designed to address the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
The proposed FIPs, if finalized, would
not limit states’ flexibility in meeting
their CAA requirements, as any state
included in this proposed rule can
submit a good neighbor SIP at any time
that, if approved by the EPA, could
replace the FIP for that state.
Additionally, CSAPR already provides
states with the option to submit
abbreviated SIPs to customize the
methodology for allocating NOX ozoneseason allowances while participating
in the ozone-season trading program
and we propose to continue that
approach in this rule.
The EPA therefore proposes revisions
to the Code of Federal Regulations,
specifically 40 CFR part 97, subpart
BBBBB (federal CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program); 40 CFR
52.38(b) (rules on replacing or
modifying the federal CSAPR NOX
ozone-season trading program with a
SIP); 40 CFR 52.540, 52.882, and
52.2140 (adding or limiting
requirements for EGUs in certain
individual states to participate in the
CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program); and 40 CFR 78.1 (modifying
the list of decisions subject to
administrative appeal procedures under
part 78) to address interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition,
various minor corrections are proposed
to these CFR and other sections of parts
52, 78, and 97 relating to the CSAPR
15 One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR
ozone season requirement under this proposal. The
remaining 22 states were included in the original
CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
16 The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets
for Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and
West Virginia.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
ozone-season and annual trading
programs.
The 23 eastern states for which the
EPA proposes to promulgate FIPs to
reduce interstate ozone transport as to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS are listed in
Table I–1.
these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 annual
emissions budgets. The EPA intends to
address the remand of the phase 2 SO2
annual emissions budgets separately.
The existing CSAPR emissions budgets
and implementation programs (CSAPR
SO2 annual and NOX annual
requirements), which address interstate
transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, continue to apply at this time.
TABLE I–A–1—PROPOSED LIST OF
COVERED STATES FOR THE 2008 8HOUR OZONE NAAQS
B. Major Provisions
State name
Alabama
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
For eastern states for which the EPA
is not proposing FIPs in this action, the
EPA notes that updates to the modeling
for the final rule, made based on
comments received on the proposal,
could change the analysis as to which
states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance. In this regard, the final
modeling could result in additional
states being included in the final rule.
Therefore, the EPA provides all data and
methods necessary for all eastern states
to comment on all aspects of this
proposal in the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis TSD. This information
includes EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets for all eastern states,
in the event that final rule modeling
demonstrates that additional states
significantly contribute to downwind air
quality problems.
The EPA notes that the annual PM2.5
NAAQS was updated after CSAPR was
promulgated (78 FR 306, January 15,
2013). However, this rulemaking does
not address the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
The EPA acknowledges that, in EME
Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit also
remanded without vacatur the CSAPR
phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets as to
four states. 795 F.3d at 129, 138. This
proposal does not address the remand of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The major provision of this action are
described in the remainder of this
preamble and organized as follows:
Section III describes the human health
and environmental context, the EPA’s
overall approach for addressing
interstate transport, and the EPA’s
response to the remand of certain
CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions
budgets; section IV describes the EPA’s
legal authority for this action; section V
describes the air quality modeling
platform and emission inventories that
the EPA used to identify downwind
receptors of concern and upwind state
ozone contributions to those receptors;
section VI describes the EPA’s proposed
approach to quantify upwind state
obligations in the form of EGU NOX
emissions budgets; section VII details
the implementation requirements
including key elements of the CSAPR
allowance trading program and
deadlines for compliance; section VIII
describes the expected costs, benefits,
and other impacts of this proposed rule;
section IX discusses proposed changes
to the existing regulatory text for the
CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR trading
programs; and section X discusses the
statutes and executive orders affecting
this rulemaking. The EPA invites
comment on this proposed rulemaking.
C. Benefits and Costs
The proposed rule would achieve
near-term emission reductions from the
power sector, lowering ozone season
NOX in 2017 by 85,000 tons, compared
to baseline 2017 projections without the
rule.
Consistent with Executive Order
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ we have estimated
the costs and benefits of the proposed
rule. Estimates here are subject to
uncertainties discussed further in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the
docket. The estimated net benefits of the
proposed rule at a 3 percent discount
rate are $700 million to $1.2 billion
(2011$). The non-monetized benefits
include reduced ecosystem effects and
reduced visibility impairment.
Discussion of the costs and benefits of
the proposal is provided in preamble
section VIII, below, and in the RIA,
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75711
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
which is found in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking. The EPA’s
estimate of the proposed rule’s costs and
quantified benefits is summarized in
Table I.C–1, below.
TABLE I.C–1—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS, MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND MONETIZED NET BENEFITS OF THE
PROPOSED RULE FOR 2017 (2011$)
Impacts at 3 percent discount rate
($ millions)
Description
Annualized Compliance Costs a ............................................................................................................................................
Monetized benefits b ...................................................................................................................................................................
Net benefits (benefits-costs) .......................................................................................................................................................
$93.
700 to 1,200.
620 to 1,200.
a Total annualized social costs are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The social costs presented here reflect the EGU ozone season
costs of complying with the proposed FIPs.
b Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits and co-benefits include many but not all
health effects associated with pollution exposure. Benefits are shown as a range reflecting studies from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al.
(2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008).
II. General Information
A. To whom does this action apply?
This proposed rule affects EGUs, and
regulates the following groups:
Industry group
NAICS *
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation ...........................................................................................................................................
221112
* 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 by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in 40 CFR
97.504. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and
Overall Approach for the Proposed
Rule
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. The Interstate Transport Challenge
Under the 2008 Ozone Standard
1. Background on the Overall Nature of
the Interstate Ozone Transport Problem
Interstate transport of NOX emissions
poses significant challenges with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the
eastern U.S. and thus presents a threat
to public health and welfare.
a. Nature of Ozone and the Ozone
NAAQS
Ground-level ozone is not emitted
directly into the air, but is created by
chemical reactions between NOX and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
volatile organic compounds (VOC) in
the presence of sunlight. Emissions from
electric utilities and industrial facilities,
motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and
chemical solvents are some of the major
sources of NOX and VOC.
Because ground-level ozone formation
increases with temperature and
sunlight, ozone levels are generally
higher during the summer. Increased
temperature also increases emissions of
volatile man-made and biogenic
organics and can indirectly increase
NOX emissions as well (e.g., increased
electricity generation for air
conditioning).
The 2008 primary and secondary
ozone standards are both 75 parts per
billion (ppb) as an 8-hour level.
Specifically, the standards require that
the 3-year average of the fourth highest
24-hour maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration may not exceed 75 ppb.
b. Ozone Transport
Studies have established that ozone
formation, atmospheric residence, and
transport occurs on a regional scale (i.e.,
thousands of kilometers) over much of
the eastern U.S., with elevated
concentrations occurring in rural as well
as metropolitan areas. While substantial
progress has been made in reducing
ozone in many urban areas, regionalscale ozone transport is still an
important component of peak ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
concentrations during the summer
ozone season.
The EPA has previously concluded in
the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR
that, for reducing regional-scale ozone
transport, a NOX control strategy would
be most effective. NOX emissions can be
transported downwind as NOX or, after
transformation in the atmosphere, as
ozone. As a result of ozone transport, in
any given location, ozone pollution
levels are impacted by a combination of
local emissions and emissions from
upwind sources. The transport of ozone
pollution across state borders
compounds the difficulty for downwind
states in meeting health-based air
quality standards (i.e., NAAQS).
Recent assessments of ozone, for
example those conducted for the
October 2015 Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA–452/R–
15–007) continue to show the
importance of NOX emissions on ozone
transport. This analysis is in the docket
for this proposal and can be also found
at the EPA’s Web site at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/
20151001ria.pdf.
There are five general categories of
NOX emission sources: EGUs, non-EGU
point, onroad mobile, non-road mobile,
and area. Studies have found that EGU
NOX emission reductions can be
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75712
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
effective in reducing individual 8-hour
peak ozone concentrations and in
reducing 8-hour peak ozone
concentrations averaged across the
ozone season. For example, a study that
evaluates the effectiveness on ozone
concentrations of EGU NOX reductions
achieved under the NOX Budget Trading
Program shows that regulating NOX
emissions has been highly effective in
reducing both ozone and dry-NO3
concentrations during the ozone season.
Further, this study indicates that EGU
emissions, which are generally released
higher in the air column through tall
stacks and are significant in quantity,
may disproportionately contribute to
long-range transport of ozone pollution
on a per-ton basis.17 Another study
shows that EGU NOX emissions can
contribute between 5 ppb and 25 ppb to
average 8-hour peak ozone
concentrations in mid-Atlantic
metropolitan statistical areas.18
Previous regional ozone transport
efforts, including the NOX SIP Call,
CAIR, and CSAPR, required ozone
season NOX reductions from EGUs to
address interstate transport of ozone.
The EPA has taken comment on
regulating EGU NOX emissions to
address interstate ozone transport in the
notice-and-comment process for these
rulemakings. The EPA received no
significant adverse comments in any of
these proposals regarding the rules’
focus on ozone season EGU NOX
reductions to address interstate ozone
transport.
As described later in this notice, the
EPA’s analysis finds that the power
sector continues to be capable of making
NOX reductions at reasonable cost that
reduce interstate transport with respect
to ground-level ozone. EGU NOX
emission reductions can be made in the
near-term under this proposal by fully
operating existing EGU NOX postcombustion controls (i.e., Selective
Catalytic Reduction and Selective NonCatalytic Reduction)—including
optimizing NOX removal by existing,
operational controls and turning on and
optimizing existing idled controls;
installation of (or upgrading to) state-ofthe-art NOX combustion controls; and
shifting generation to units with lower
NOX emission rates. Further, additional
assessment reveals that these available
17 Butler, et al., ‘‘Response of Ozone and Nitrate
to Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern
USA’’.
18 Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of
regional NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8hour ozone concentrations in the Washington, DC;
Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs.
‘‘Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions
to ozone and fine particulate matter-related
mortalities in eastern U.S. urban areas’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
EGU NOX reductions would make
meaningful and timely improvements in
ozone air quality.
The Clean Air Act’s good neighbor
provision requires states and the EPA to
address interstate transport of air
pollution that affects downwind states’
ability to attain and maintain NAAQS.
Other provisions of the CAA, namely
sections 179B and 319(b), are available
to deal with NAAQS exceedances not
attributable to the interstate transport of
pollution covered by the good neighbor
provisions but caused by emission
sources outside the control of a
downwind state. These provisions
address international transport and
exceptional events, respectively.19 20
c. Health and Environmental Effects
Exposure to ambient ozone causes a
variety of negative effects on human
health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In
humans, acute and chronic exposure to
ozone is associated with premature
mortality and a number of morbidity
effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In
ecosystems, ozone exposure causes
visible foliar injury, decreases plant
growth, and affects ecosystem
community composition. See the EPA’s
November 2014 Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-Level Ozone
(EPA–452/P–14–006), in the docket for
this proposal and available on the EPA’s
Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf, for
more information on the human health
19 The EPA recognizes that both in-state and
upwind wildfires may contribute to monitored
ozone concentrations. The EPA encourages all
states to consider how the appropriate use of
prescribed fire may benefit of public safety and
health by resulting in fewer ozone exceedances for
both the affected state and their neighboring states.
20 The CAA and the EPA’s implementing
regulations, specifically the Exceptional Events
Rule at 40 CFR 50.14, allow for the exclusion of air
quality monitoring data from regulatory
determinations when events, including wildland
fires, contribute to NAAQS exceedances or
violations if they meet certain requirements,
including the criterion that the event be not
reasonably controllable or preventable. Wildland
fires can be of two types: Wildfire (unplanned) and
prescribed fire (planned). Under the Exceptional
Events Rule, wildfires are considered, by their
nature, to be not reasonably controllable or
preventable. Because prescribed fires on wildland
are intentionally ignited for resource management
purposes, to meet the not reasonably controllable or
preventable criterion, they must be conducted
under a certified Smoke Management Program or
employ basic smoke management practices. Both
types of wildland fire must also satisfy the other
rule criteria. The EPA will soon propose revisions
to the Exceptional Events Rule and release a draft
guidance document, which applies the proposed
rule revisions to wildfire events that could
influence ozone concentrations. These actions,
which the EPA intends to finalize in the summer
of 2016, further clarify the treatment of wildland
fires under the Exceptional Events Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and welfare and ecosystem effects
associated with ambient ozone
exposure.
2. Events Affecting Application of the
Good Neighbor Provision for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS
The 2008 revisions to the ozone
NAAQS were promulgated on March 12,
2008. See National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Final Rule, 73 FR
16436 (March 27, 2008). The revision of
the NAAQS, in turn, triggered a 3-year
deadline of March 12, 2011, for states to
submit SIP revisions addressing
infrastructure requirements under CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),
including the good neighbor provision.
During this 3-year SIP development
period, on September 16, 2009, the EPA
announced 21 that it would reconsider
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To reduce the
workload for states during the interim
period of reconsideration, the EPA also
announced its intention to propose
staying implementation of the 2008
standards for a number of the
requirements. On January 6, 2010, the
EPA proposed to revise the 2008
NAAQS for ozone from 75 ppb to a level
within the range of 60 to 70 ppb. See 75
FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). The EPA
indicated its intent to issue final
standards based upon the
reconsideration by summer 2011.
On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized
CSAPR, in response to the DC Circuit’s
remand of the EPA’s prior federal
transport rule, CAIR. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses
ozone transport under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, but does not address the 2008
ozone standard, because the 2008 ozone
NAAQS was under reconsideration
during the analytic work for the rule.
On September 2, 2011, consistent
with the direction of the President, the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
the Office of Management and Budget
returned the draft final 2008 ozone rule
EPA had developed upon
reconsideration to the Agency for
further consideration.22 In view of this
direction and the timing of the agency’s
ongoing periodic review of the ozone
NAAQS required under CAA section
109 (as announced on September 29,
2008), the EPA decided to coordinate
further proceedings on its voluntary
reconsideration rulemaking of the 2008
21 Fact Sheet. The EPA to reconsider Ozone
Pollution Standards. https://www.epa.gov/
groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_FACT
%20SHEET_091609.pdf.
22 See Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
August 2014, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/
standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf, at 1–9.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ozone standard with that of its ongoing
periodic review of the ozone NAAQS.23
Implementation for the original 2008
ozone standard was renewed. However,
during this time period, a number of
legal developments pertaining to the
EPA’s promulgation of CSAPR created
uncertainty surrounding the EPA’s
statutory interpretation and
implementation of the good neighbor
provision.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing
several legal challenges to CSAPR and
holding, among other things, that states
had no obligation to submit good
neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first
quantified each state’s good neighbor
obligation.24 According to that decision,
the submission deadline for good
neighbor SIPs under the CAA would not
necessarily be tied to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. While the
EPA disagreed with this interpretation
of the statute and sought review of the
decision in the D.C. Circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court, the EPA complied with
the D.C. Circuit’s ruling during the
pendency of its appeal. In particular, the
EPA indicated that, consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it would not at
that time issue findings that states had
failed to submit SIPs addressing the
good neighbor provision.25
On January 23, 2013, the Supreme
Court granted the EPA’s petition for
certiorari.26 During 2013 and early 2014,
as the EPA awaited a decision from the
Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts
and technical analyses aimed at
identifying and quantifying state good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. As part of this effort, the EPA
solicited stakeholder input and also
provided states with, and requested
input on, emissions inventories for 2011
(78 FR 70935, November 27, 2013) and
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23 Id.
24 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
25 See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air
and Radiation former Assistant Administrator Gina
McCarthy to the EPA Regions, ‘‘Next Steps for
Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the
Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 CrossState Air Pollution Rule,’’ November 19, 2012; 78
FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on
Florida infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS); 78 FR 14450 (March 6, 2013)
(final action on Tennessee infrastructure SIP
submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); Final
Rule, Findings of Failure To Submit a Complete
State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)
Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 78 FR 2884 (January 15, 2013).
26 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133
S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other
parties’ petitions for certiorari).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
inventory projections for 2018 (79 FR
2437, January 14, 2014).
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
reversed the D.C. Circuit’s EME Homer
City opinion on CSAPR and held,
among other things, that under the plain
language of the CAA, states must submit
SIPs addressing the good neighbor
provision within 3 years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA
first provides guidance, technical data,
or rulemaking to quantify the state’s
obligation.27 Thus, the Supreme Court
affirmed that states have an obligation
in the first instance to address the good
neighbor provision after promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding
that also applies to states’ obligation to
address transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
The Supreme Court holding affirmed
that states were required to submit SIPs
addressing the good neighbor provision
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by March 12, 2011. To the extent that
states have failed to submit SIPs to meet
this statutory obligation, then the EPA
has not only the authority, but the
obligation, to promulgate FIPs to
address the CAA requirement.
Following the remand of the case to
the D.C. Circuit, the EPA requested that
the court lift the CSAPR stay and toll
the CSAPR compliance deadlines by
three years. On October 23, 2014, the
D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request.
The EPA issued an interim final rule to
revise the regulatory deadlines in
CSAPR to reflect the three-year delay in
implementation. Accordingly, CSAPR
phase 1 implementation began in 2015
and phase 2 will begin in 2017.28
On March 6, 2015, the EPA’s final
2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements
Rule 29 revised the attainment deadline
for ozone nonattainment areas currently
designated as moderate to July 2018. In
order to demonstrate attainment by the
deadline, the demonstration would have
to be based on design values calculated
using 2015 through 2017 ozone season
data, since the July 2018 deadline does
not afford a full ozone season of
measured data. The EPA established
this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule after previously
establishing a deadline of December 31,
2018, that was vacated by the D.C.
Circuit Court in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA.30
On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit
issued its opinion regarding CSAPR on
27 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014).
28 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014).
29 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR
51.1103.
30 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75713
remand from the Supreme Court, EME
Homer City II, 795 F.3d 118. The court
largely upheld CSAPR, but remanded to
EPA without vacatur certain states’
emissions budgets for reconsideration.
This proposal responds to the remand of
certain CSAPR NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets to the EPA for
reconsideration; see section C below.
Regarding the remand of CSAPR phase
2 SO2 annual emissions budgets as to
four states, this proposal does not
address that particular aspect of the D.C.
Circuit opinion. The EPA intends to
address the remand of the phase 2 SO2
annual emissions budgets separately.
B. Proposed Approach To Address
Ozone Transport Under the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS via FIPs
1. The CSAPR Framework
CSAPR establishes a 4-step process to
address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision.31 The EPA proposes
to follow the same steps for this
rulemaking with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. These steps are: (1)
Identifying downwind receptors that are
expected to have problems attaining or
maintaining clean air standards (i.e.,
NAAQS); (2) determining which
upwind states contribute to these
identified problems in amounts
sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to the
downwind air quality problems; (3) for
states linked to downwind air quality
problems, identifying upwind emissions
that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of a standard by
quantifying available upwind emission
reductions and apportioning upwind
responsibility among linked states; and
(4) for states that are found to have
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS downwind,
reducing the identified upwind
emissions via regional emissions
allowance trading programs.
Step 1—In the original CSAPR,
downwind air quality problems were
assessed using modeled future air
quality concentrations for a year aligned
with attainment deadlines for the
NAAQS considered in that rulemaking.
The assessment of future air quality
conditions generally accounts for onthe-books emission reductions 32 and
the most up-to-date forecast of future
emissions in the absence of the
transport policy being evaluated (i.e.,
base case conditions). The locations of
31 See CSAPR, Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
32 Since CSAPR was designed to replace CAIR,
CAIR emissions reductions were not considered
‘‘on-the-books.’’
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75714
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
downwind air quality problems are
identified as those with receptors that
are projected to be unable to attain (i.e.,
nonattainment receptor) or maintain
(i.e., maintenance receptor) the
standard. This proposal follows this
same general approach. However, the
EPA also proposes to consider current
monitored air quality data to further
inform the projected identification of
downwind air quality problems for this
proposal. Further details and
application of step one for this proposal
are described in section V of this notice.
Step 2—The original CSAPR used a
screening threshold of one percent of
the NAAQS to identify upwind states
that were ‘‘linked’’ to downwind air
pollution problems. States were
identified as needing further evaluation
for actions to address transport if their
air quality impact 33 was greater than or
equal to the threshold for at least one
downwind problem receptor (i.e.,
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
identified in step 1). We evaluated a
given state’s contribution based on the
average relative downwind impact
calculated over multiple days. States
whose air quality impacts to all
downwind problem receptors were
below this threshold did not require
further evaluation for actions to address
transport—that is, these states were
determined to make insignificant
contributions to downwind air quality
problems and therefore have no
emission reduction obligations under
the good neighbor provision. The EPA
used this threshold because much of the
ozone nonattainment problem in the
eastern half of the United States results
from relatively small contributions from
a number of upwind states. Use of the
one percent threshold for CSAPR is
discussed in the preambles to the
proposed and final CSAPR rules. See 75
FR 45237 (Aug. 2, 2010); 76 FR 48238,
(Aug. 8, 2011). The EPA proposes to use
this same approach for this rule.
Application of step two for this proposal
is described in section V of this notice.
Step 3—For states that are linked in
step 2 to downwind air quality
problems, the original CSAPR used a
multi-factor test to evaluate emission
reductions available in upwind states by
application of uniform cost thresholds.
The EPA evaluated NOX reductions that
were available in upwind states by
applying a marginal cost of NOX
emissions to entities in these states.
This approach, in essence, simulated
placing an economic value on NOX
emissions and evaluated emission
ozone the impacts would include those
from volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX,
and from all sectors.
reduction potential that was costeffective under this constraint. The EPA
evaluated NOX reduction potential, cost,
and downwind air quality
improvements available at several cost
thresholds in the multi-factor test. This
evaluation quantified the magnitude of
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS downwind
and apportioned upwind responsibility
among linked states, an approach
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
EPA v. EME Homer City.34 The EPA
proposes to apply this approach to
identify NOX emission reductions
necessary to reduce interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, updated to
also explicitly consider over-control.
For this proposal, the multi-factor test is
also used to evaluate possible overcontrol by evaluating if an upwind state
is linked solely to downwind air quality
problems that are resolved at a given
cost threshold, or if upwind states
would reduce their emissions at a given
cost threshold to the extent that they
would no longer meet or exceed the 1%
air quality contribution threshold. This
evaluation of cost, NOX reductions, and
air quality improvements, including its
consideration of potential over-control,
results in the EPA’s determination of
upwind emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind. Next, emissions budgets are
determined. Emissions budgets are
remaining allowable emissions after the
elimination of emissions identified as
significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the standard downwind.
The EPA’s assessment of significant
contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance and
development of EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets is described in
section VI of this notice.
Step 4—Finally, the original CSAPR
used allowance trading programs to
implement the necessary emission
reductions. Specifically, the emissions
budgets identified in step 3 were
implemented via a tradable allowance
program. Emissions allowances were
issued to units covered by the trading
program and the allowances can be
turned in at the close of each
compliance period to account for a
specified amount of ozone season EGU
NOX emissions. Additionally, the
original CSAPR included variability
limits, which define the amount by
which collective emissions within a
state may exceed the level of the
33 For
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
34 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584, 1606–07 (2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
budgets in a given year to account for
variability in EGU operations. CSAPR
set assurance levels equal to the sum of
each state’s emissions budget plus its
variability limit. The original CSAPR
included assurance provisions that help
to assure that state emissions remain
below the assurance levels in each state
by requiring additional allowance
surrenders in the instance that
emissions in the state exceed the state’s
assurance level. This limited interstate
trading approach is responsive to
previous court decisions (see discussion
in section IV of this preamble) and has
been upheld in subsequent litigation
regarding CSAPR. The EPA proposes to
apply this approach to reduce interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Implementation using the CSAPR
allowance trading program is described
in section VII of this notice.
2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of
Transport Obligation
Given the unique circumstances
surrounding the implementation of the
2008 ozone standard that have delayed
state and EPA efforts to address
interstate transport, at this time the EPA
is focusing its efforts on the
immediately available and cost-effective
emission reductions that are achievable
by the 2017 ozone season.
a. Partial Remedy Under Proposed FIPs
This rulemaking proposes to establish
(or revise currently established) FIPs for
23 eastern states under the good
neighbor provision of the CAA. These
FIPs contain requirements for EGUs in
these states to reduce ozone season NOX
emissions for the 2017 ozone season. As
noted in section VI, the EPA has
identified important EGU emission
reductions that are achievable starting
for the 2017 ozone season in each of the
covered states through actions such as
turning on and operating existing
pollution controls. These readily
available emission reductions will assist
downwind states to attain and maintain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will
provide human health and welfare
benefits through reduced exposure to
ozone pollution.
While these reductions are necessary
to assist downwind states attain and
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
are necessary to address good neighbor
obligations for these states, the EPA
acknowledges that they may not be
sufficient to fully address these states’
good neighbor obligations.35 With
respect to the 2008 ozone standard, the
35 The proposed requirements for one state, North
Carolina, would fully eliminate that state’s
significant contribution to downwind air quality
problems.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EPA has generally not attempted to
quantify the ozone season NOX
reductions that may be necessary to
eliminate all significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance in other states. Given the
time constraints for implementing NOX
reduction strategies, the EPA believes
that implementation of a full remedy
may not be achievable for 2017, even
though a partial remedy is achievable.
To evaluate full elimination of a
state’s significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone
season NOX reductions should both be
evaluated. However, the EPA is not
proposing to quantify non-EGU
emissions reductions to address
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS at this time because: (1)
There is greater uncertainty in the nonEGU emission inventory estimates than
for EGUs; and (2) there appear to be few
non-EGU reductions that could be
accomplished by the beginning of the
2017 ozone season. This is discussed
further in section VI of this proposal
and in the Non-EGU NOX Mitigation
Strategies TSD. We intend to continue
to collect information and undertake
analysis for potential future emissions
reductions at non-EGUs that may be
necessary to fully quantify states’
significant contributions in a future
action.
Because the reductions proposed in
this action are EGU-only and because
EPA has focused the policy analysis for
this proposal on reductions available by
2017, for most states they represent a
first, partial step to addressing a given
upwind state’s significant contribution
to downwind air quality impacts for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Generally, a final
determination of whether the proposed
EGU NOX reductions represent a full or
partial elimination of a state’s good
neighbor obligation for the 2008
NAAQS is subject to an evaluation of
the contribution to interstate transport
from additional emission sectors, such
as non-EGUs. However, the EPA
believes that it is beneficial to
implement, without further delay, EGU
NOX reductions that are achievable in
the near term. The proposed NOX
emission reductions are needed
(although they may not be all that is
needed) for these states to eliminate
their significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA’s current statutory deadlines to
promulgate FIPs extend until 2017 for
most states, and the EPA will remain
mindful of those deadlines as it
evaluates what further steps may be
necessary to address interstate transport
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
seeks comment on possible future steps
that may be necessary to resolve the
remainder of the good neighbor
obligation for the 2008 ozone standard.
The EPA has shared information with
states to facilitate the development of
the ozone transport SIPs.36 The EPA
encourages state SIP development and
will continue to assist states in
developing transport SIPs regardless of
whether they are covered by this
proposed FIP. Where a state would be
covered by this proposed FIP, the EPA
may be able to partially approve SIPs
that include controls on EGU emissions
that achieve ozone season NOX emission
reductions and/or that establish EGU
NOX ozone emissions budgets
approximately equivalent to those
identified in this proposal as achievable
by 2017. (This is discussed in more
detail in Section VII.) In these SIPS,
states could also demonstrate that they
are achieving the same level of
emissions reductions through non-EGU
source measures as they would achieve
under the EGU budgets established in
the FIP. For example, a SIP could set
EGU budgets, but allow emission
reductions from non-EGU sources as a
compliance option. EPA also seeks
comment on methods it can use to
ensure that any non-EGU reductions are
incremental to the base case, permanent,
and enforceable.
75715
maintenance problems in other states.
The EPA would generally expect to
propose full approval of these SIPs.
(2) The SIP demonstrates that the state
will timely achieve reductions that fully
address its significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in downwind states. This
demonstration could include an
assessment of how all emissions source
sectors contribute to the state’s
contribution and how these sectors are
controlled in that state. States wishing
to seek full approval of good neighbor
SIPs should contact their appropriate
regional office. Guidance on developing
such SIPs is outside the scope of this
action, but the EPA intends to work
closely with any state that is interested
in pursuing this option.
b. Potential for Full Remedy Under SIPs
The EPA also notes that many states
have already submitted, or are currently
developing, SIP submittals to address
the good neighbor provision of the CAA
for the 2008 ozone standard, and
expects that some may assert that the
state plan fully addresses the state’s
good neighbor obligation.
The EPA anticipates that those SIPs
intending to fully address the state’s
good neighbor obligations and for which
the state is seeking approval may fall
into one of two categories:
(1) The SIP concludes that the state is
meeting its good neighbor obligation
without need for additional NOX
reductions. This SIP could include an
adequate demonstration, using EPA or
state-generated analytical results, which
supports the state’s conclusion that the
state contributes insignificant amounts
to downwind nonattainment or
3. Why We Focus on Eastern States
CSAPR and previous federal transport
rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and
CAIR, were designed to address
collective contributions of ozone
pollution from states in the eastern U.S.
These rules did not address
contributions in the 11 western
contiguous United States.37 The EPA’s
air quality modeling that supports this
proposed rule includes data for the
western states. This assessment shows
that there are problem receptors in the
West to which western states contribute
amounts greater than or equal to the
screening threshold used to evaluate
transport across eastern states (i.e., 1
percent of the NAAQS). However, there
may be additional criteria to evaluate
regarding transported air pollution in
the West when evaluating upwind
states’ contributions to downwind air
quality impacts, such as those discussed
in EPA-state meetings to discuss
approaches for determining how
emissions in upwind states impact air
quality in downwind states.38 Given
that the near-term 2017 implementation
timeframe constrains the opportunity to
conduct a further evaluation of western
states, the EPA proposes to focus this
rulemaking on eastern states. This focus
would not relieve western states of
obligations to address interstate
transport under the Act. The EPA and
states working together would continue
to evaluate interstate transport in the
western states on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA would also continue to engage
36 On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo
with preliminary air quality modeling data that
characterized interstate ozone transport projected to
2018. On April 8, 2015, the EPA held a workshop
that continued a discussion with states on the path
forward for addressing interstate transport for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On August 4, 2015, we
published a NODA with updated modeling that
states could use to support development of
transport SIPs.
37 For the purpose of this action, the western U.S.
(or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous
states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming, and the eastern U.S. (or
East) consists of the remaining states in the
contiguous U.S.
38 For example, EPA-State meetings held in
Research Triangle Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and
Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75716
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
with western states on air quality
modeling analyses and the implications
of those analyses for interstate transport.
While the EPA proposes to focus this
rulemaking on eastern states, we seek
comment on whether to include western
states in this rule. The EPA notes that
analyses developed to support this
proposal, including air quality modeling
and the EPA’s assessment of EGU NOX
mitigation potential, contain data that
could be useful for states in developing
SIPs or could be used to develop FIPs,
where necessary.
The EPA seeks comment on the data
provided for western states, including
emissions inventories, ozone
concentration modeling, contribution
modeling, and EPA’s assessment of EGU
NOX reduction potential.39 These data
are available in the docket for this
proposal. The EPA also solicits
comment on whether to promulgate
FIPs to address interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
western states, either in this rulemaking
or in a subsequent rulemaking.
4. Short-Term NOX Emissions
In eastern states, the highest measured
ozone days tend to occur within the
hottest days, weeks, or months of the
summer. On many high ozone days,
there is higher demand for electricity
(for instance, to run air conditioners). In
general and technical discussions with
representatives and officials of eastern
states in April 2013 and April 2015, and
in several letters to the EPA, officials
from the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) 40 states suggested that EGU
emissions transported from upwind
states may disproportionally affect
downwind ozone concentrations on
peak ozone days in the eastern U.S.
These representatives asked that the
EPA consider additional ‘‘peak day’’
limits on EGU NOX emissions.
Some states have also asked the EPA
to consider whether existing emission
controls are being turned off for short
periods (e.g., multiple days) within the
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
39 On
August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice
of Data Availability (80 FR 46271) requesting
comment on the air quality modeling platform and
air quality modeling results that are being used for
this proposed rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the
EPA requested comment on the data and
methodologies related to the 2011 and 2017
emissions and the air quality modeling to project
2017 concentrations and contributions. Comments
received on that data via the NODA will be
considered for the final rule.
40 The OTR was established by the CAA
amendments of 1990 to facilitate addressing the
ozone problem on a regional basis and consists of
the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, the District of Columbia and northern
Virginia. 42 U.S.C. 7511c, CAA section 184.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
ozone season, for example during hot
weeks. These states assert that
emissions from short-term idling of
controls may contribute to downwind
ozone NAAQS exceedances in the
eastern U.S. These states suggest that
sub-seasonal limits on EGU NOX
emissions would reduce ozone
formation that might be attributable to
short-term idling of NOX controls.
The EPA seeks comment on whether
or not short-term (e.g., peak-day) EGU
NOX emissions disproportionately
impact downwind ozone
concentrations, and if they do, then
what EGU emission limits (e.g., daily or
monthly emission rates or differential
allowance surrender ratios on high
ozone days) would be reasonable
complements to the proposed seasonal
CSAPR requirement to mitigate this
impact.
C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets
As noted above, in EME Homer City
II, the D.C. Circuit declared invalid the
CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets of 11 states, holding
that those budgets over-control with
respect to the downwind air quality
problems to which those states were
linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 795
F.3d at 129–30, 138. As to ten of these
states, the court held that EPA’s 2014
modeling conducted to support the RIA
for CSAPR demonstrated that air quality
problems at the downwind locations to
which those states were linked would
resolve by phase 2 of the CSAPR
program without further transport
regulation (either CAIR or CSAPR). Id.
at 129–30. With respect to Texas, the
court held that the record reflected that
the ozone air quality problems to which
the state was linked could be resolved
at a lower cost threshold. Id. The court
therefore remanded those budgets to
EPA for reconsideration consistent with
the court’s opinion. Id. at 138. The court
instructed the EPA to act ‘‘promptly’’ in
addressing these issues on remand. Id.
at 132.
The court’s decision explicitly applies
to 11 state budgets involved in that
litigation: Florida, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129–
30, 138. EPA is proposing in this
rulemaking to promulgate FIPs for nine
of those states to address interstate
transport with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS: Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. The proposed FIPs incorporate
revised emissions budgets that would
supplant and replace the budgets
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
promulgated in the CSAPR rule to
address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the
same budgets remanded by the D.C.
Circuit for reconsideration. Further, as
proposed in this rule, these proposed
budgets would be effective for the 2017
ozone season, the same period in which
the phase 2 budgets that were
invalidated by the court are currently
scheduled to become effective.
Therefore, this proposed action provides
an appropriate and timely response to
the court’s remand by replacing the
budgets promulgated in the CSAPR to
address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which
were declared invalid by the D.C.
Circuit, with budgets developed to
address the revised and more stringent
2008 ozone NAAQS.41
The EPA notes that it is able to
propose addressing the D.C. Circuit’s
remand of CSAPR NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets because the agency
was already performing analysis and
policy development for this proposal,
which is directly applicable to this
aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion.
Separately, various petitioners filed
legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit to a
supplemental rule that added five states
to the CSAPR ozone-season trading
program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011).
See Public Service Company of
Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12–1023 (D.C.
Cir., filed Jan. 13, 2012). The case was
held in abeyance during the pendency
of the litigation in EME Homer City. The
case remains pending in the D.C. Circuit
as of the date of signature of this
proposed rule.42 The EPA notes that this
rulemaking also proposes to promulgate
FIPs for all five states added to CSAPR
in the supplemental rule: Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin. The proposed FIPs
incorporate revised emissions budgets
that would supplant and replace the
budgets promulgated in the
supplemental CSAPR rule to address the
1997 ozone NAAQS for these five states
41 The methodology for developing the proposed
budgets to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
described in more detail in Sections VI and VII
below. Section VI also includes an evaluation, as
instructed by the court in EME Homer City II, to
affirm that the proposed budgets do not overcontrol with respect to downwind air quality
problems identified in this rule. 795 F.3d at 127–
28.
42 In 2012, the EPA also finalized two rules
making certain revisions to CSAPR. 77 FR 10324
(Feb. 21, 2012); 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012).
Various petitioners filed legal challenges to these
rules in the D.C. Circuit, and the cases were also
held in abeyance pending the litigation in EME
Homer City. See Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v.
EPA, No. 12–1163 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 6, 2012);
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1346
(D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 9, 2012). The cases currently
remain pending in the D.C. Circuit.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and would be effective for the 2017
ozone season.
For the two remaining ozone-season
states affected by this portion of the
EME Homer City II decision, Florida and
South Carolina, the EPA is not
proposing in this action to promulgate
FIPs because the air quality modeling
performed to support the proposal does
not indicate that these states are linked
to any identified downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
with respect to the 2008 ozone standard.
Inherently then, because the 2008 ozone
NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997
ozone NAAQS, this modeling also does
not indicate that Florida or South
Carolina are linked to any remaining air
quality concerns with respect to the
1997 ozone standard for which the
states were regulated in CSAPR.
Accordingly, in order to address the
Court’s remand with respect to these
two states’ interstate transport
responsibility under the 1997 ozone
standard, the EPA proposes to remove
these states from the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program beginning in
2017 when the phase 2 ozone-season
emissions budgets were scheduled to be
implemented.
The EPA notes that because the
proposed rule modeling was performed
prior to the D.C. Circuit’s issuance of
EME Homer City II, that modeling
assumed in its baseline for all states the
emission reductions associated with the
CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets.
In the final rule modeling, the EPA will
make any additional changes to the
emissions inventories or modeling
platform as may be justified based on
comments received on the modeling
performed for the proposed rule. In the
event that air quality modeling
conducted for the final rule
demonstrates that either Florida or
South Carolina are projected to
significantly (e.g., greater than or equal
to 1% of the NAAQS) contribute to an
air quality problem with respect to the
2008 ozone standard in the absence of
a CSAPR-related emissions budget in
place for those states, the EPA instead
proposes to finalize revised budgets
(presented with this rulemaking for
comment) for whichever of those states
may be identified as linked to such air
quality problems rather than remove
those states from the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program. The EPA has
calculated emissions budgets for Florida
and South Carolina that we are
proposing to apply to those states if, and
only if, the final rule air quality
modeling identifies a linkage as just
described. These proposed budgets are
developed using the same methods
applied to the 23 states that the EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
proposed to regulate in this action.
These methods are described in section
VI of this proposal and the methods and
resulting emissions budgets are
provided in the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis TSD.
The EPA seeks comment on this
approach with respect to addressing the
remand as to Florida and South
Carolina, including the proposed
budgets that would apply to those states
if a linkage is identified, which are
available in the docket.
Additionally, the EPA notes Florida
and South Carolina may be relying upon
emissions reductions that result from
now-remanded emissions budgets in
Florida and South Carolina to satisfy
statutory obligations other than the
interstate transport requirements.
However, Florida and South Carolina
may have an interest in submitting SIPs
to continue their participation in the
CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program in order to meet other Clean
Air Act requirements. Likewise, to the
extent that the final modeling indicates
that other states included in the remand
of the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets are not linked
to any identified downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
with respect to the 2008 ozone standard,
they would not be included in the final
FIPs but they may be interested in
continuing to participate in the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program in
order to meet other Clean Air Act
requirements. The EPA seeks comment
on whether to allow Florida, South
Carolina, and other similarly situated
states (if any) to continue their
participation in the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason program through voluntary SIPs
that would retain the CSAPR NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets,
contingent upon review and approval by
the EPA.
The D.C. Circuit also remanded
without vacatur the CSAPR SO2 annual
emissions budgets for four states
(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and
Texas) for reconsideration. 795 F.3d at
129, 138. This proposal does not
address the remand of these CSAPR
phase 2 SO2 annual emissions budgets.
The EPA intends to address the remand
of the phase 2 SO2 annual emissions
budgets separately. The existing CSAPR
annual emissions budgets and
implementation programs (CSAPR SO2
annual and NOX annual requirements),
which address interstate transport for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
continue to apply at this time.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75717
D. Addressing Outstanding Transport
Obligations for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
In the original CSAPR, the EPA noted
that the reductions for 11 states may not
be sufficient to fully eliminate all
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance for certain downwind
areas with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.43 The 11 states are: Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.44 In the
original CSAPR, the EPA’s analysis
projected continued nonattainment and
maintenance problems at downwind
receptors to which these upwind states
were linked after implementation of the
CSAPR trading programs. Specifically,
the persistent ozone problems were
expected in Baton Rouge, Louisiana;
Houston, Texas; and Allegan, Michigan
according to the remedy case modeling
conducted for the final rule. At that time
the EPA did not address whether
additional ozone season NOX emission
reductions would be needed in these
states to fully resolve the good neighbor
obligation under the CAA with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS beyond the
EGU requirements promulgated in
CSAPR.
To evaluate whether additional
emission reductions would be needed in
these 11 states to address the states’ full
good neighbor obligation for the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the EPA reviewed the
2017 baseline air quality modeling
conducted for this proposal, which
includes emission reductions associated
with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season
budgets.
The updated 2017 air quality
modeling shows that the predicted
average DVs and maximum DVs for
2017 are below the level of the 1997
ozone NAAQS for the downwind
receptors of concern that the 11 states
were linked to in the original CSAPR for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further, the
2017 air quality modeling shows that
there are no other nonattainment or
43 See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR at 48220, and the
CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 FR at 80760,
December 27, 2011.
44 The EPA acknowledges that, despite its
conclusion in CSAPR that the air quality problems
to which Texas was linked in the original CSAPR
were not fully resolved, the court concluded in EME
Homer City II that the NOX ozone-season emissions
budget finalized for Texas resulted in over-control
as to the ozone air quality problems to which the
state was linked. 795 F.3d at 129–30. As discussed
below in section V, this rule proposes to respond
to the remand of Texas’s NOX ozone-season
emissions budget by promulgating a new budget to
address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has also
evaluated Texas’s contribution to any remaining air
quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. [Text may be revised to reflect ongoing
litigation.]
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75718
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
maintenance receptors to which these
areas would be linked with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This
conclusion demonstrates that no further
emission reductions are required to
address the interstate transport
obligations of these states with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
therefore EPA finds that the original
CSAPR emissions budgets satisfy these
states’ full obligation to address
interstate ozone transport under the
good neighbor provision of the CAA as
to that NAAQS. Therefore, we propose
to find that the original CSAPR FIPs
fully satisfy those 11 states’ good
neighbor CAA obligations regarding the
emissions that contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in other states.
IV. Legal Authority
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. EPA’s Authority for the Proposed
Rule
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this
proposed action is provided by the CAA
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the
CAA provide the primary statutory
bases for this proposal. The most
relevant portions of section 110 are
subsections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2), and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(c)(1).
Section 110(a)(1) provides that states
must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3
years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary
ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),’’ and that these SIP
submissions are to provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.45 The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
the EPA taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised
NAAQS.46
The EPA has historically referred to
SIP submissions made for the purpose
of satisfying the applicable requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required content of these
submissions. It includes a list of specific
elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’
45 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,
134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014).
46 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
submission must address.47 All states,
regardless of whether the state includes
areas designated as nonattainment for
the relevant NAAQS, must have SIPs
that meet the applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2), including provisions
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) described
further below and which are the focus
of this proposal.
Section 110(c)(1) requires the
Administrator to promulgate a FIP at
any time within 2 years after the
Administrator: (1) Finds that a state has
failed to make a required SIP
submission, (2) finds a SIP submission
to be incomplete pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(1)(C), or (3) disapproves
a SIP submission, unless the state
corrects the deficiency through a SIP
revision that the Administrator
approves before the FIP is
promulgated.48
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known
as the ‘‘good neighbor provision,’’
provides the basis for this proposed
action. It requires that each state SIP
shall include provisions sufficient to
‘‘prohibit[] . . . any source or other type
of emissions activity within the State
from emitting any air pollutants in
amounts which will—(I) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any
other State with respect to any
[NAAQS].’’ 49
The EPA has previously issued three
rules interpreting and clarifying the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for states in the eastern half of the
United States. These rules, and the
associated court decisions addressing
these rules, provide important guidance
regarding the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in
1998, addressed the good neighbor
provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.50 The rule required 22 states
and the District of Columbia to amend
their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that
contribute to ozone nonattainment. The
EPA set a NOX ozone-season budget for
each affected state, essentially a cap on
ozone season NOX emissions in the
state. Sources in the affected states were
given the option to participate in a
regional cap-and-trade program, known
47 EPA’s general approach to infrastructure SIP
submissions is explained in greater detail in
individual notices acting or proposing to act on
state infrastructure SIP submissions and in
guidance. See, e.g., Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept.
2013).
48 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
49 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
50 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
as the NOX Budget Trading Program
(NBP). The NOX SIP Call was largely
upheld by the D.C. Circuit in Michigan
v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert. denied, 532 U.S. 904 (2001).
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
promulgated in 2005, addressed both
the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards
under the good neighbor provision.51
CAIR required SIP revisions in 28 states
and the District of Columbia to ensure
that certain emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and/or NOX—important
precursors of regionally transported
PM2.5 (SO2 and NOX) and ozone
(NOX)—were prohibited. Like the NOX
SIP Call, states were given the option to
participate in a regional cap-and-trade
program to satisfy their SIP obligations.
When the EPA promulgated the final
CAIR in May 2005, the EPA also issued
a national rule finding that states had
failed to submit SIPs to address the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, given that
states were required by the CAA to have
submitted section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs
for those standards by July 2000.52 This
finding of failure to submit triggered a
2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs
to address interstate transport, and on
March 15, 2006, the EPA promulgated
FIPs to ensure that the emission
reductions required by CAIR would be
achieved on schedule.53 CAIR was
remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in
North Carolina, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir.
2008), modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176.
For more information on the legal
considerations of CAIR and the D.C.
Circuit holding in North Carolina, refer
to the preamble of the final CSAPR
rule.54
In 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR
to address the issues raised by the
remand of CAIR and additionally to
address the good neighbor provision for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.55 CSAPR
requires 28 states to reduce SO2
emissions, annual NOX emissions, and/
or ozone season NOX emissions that
significantly contribute to other states’
nonattainment or interfere with other
states’ abilities to maintain these air
quality standards. To accomplish
implementation aligned with the
applicable attainment deadlines, the
EPA promulgated FIPs for each of the 28
states covered by CSAPR. The FIPs
implement regional cap-and-trade
programs to achieve the necessary
reductions. States can submit good
51 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
FR 21147 (May 12, 2005).
53 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006).
54 76 FR 48208, 48217 (Aug. 8, 2011).
55 76 FR 48208.
52 70
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
neighbor SIPs at any time that, if
approved by the EPA, would replace the
CSAPR FIP for that state. As discussed
below, CSAPR was the subject of
decisions by both the D.C. Circuit and
the Supreme Court, which largely
upheld the rule.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and holding,
among other things, that states had no
obligation to submit good neighbor SIPs
until the EPA had first quantified each
state’s good neighbor obligation.56 The
implication of this decision was that the
EPA did not have authority to
promulgate FIPs as a result of states’
failure to submit or EPA’s disapproval
of such SIPs. The EPA sought review,
first with the D.C. Circuit en banc and
then with the Supreme Court. While the
D.C. Circuit declined to consider the
EPA’s appeal en banc,57 on January 23,
2013, the Supreme Court granted the
EPA’s petition for certiorari.58
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
issued a decision reversing the D.C.
Circuit’s EME Homer City opinion on
CSAPR and held, among other things,
that under the plain language of the
CAA, states must submit SIPs
addressing the good neighbor provision
within 3 years of promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, regardless of
whether the EPA first provides
guidance, technical data or rulemaking
to quantify the state’s obligation.59
Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed that
states have an obligation in the first
instance to address the good neighbor
provision after promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, a holding that also
applies to states’ obligation to address
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The Supreme Court remanded
the litigation to the D.C. Circuit for
further proceedings.
Finally, on July 28, 2015, the D.C.
Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR
regarding the remaining legal issues
raised by the Petitioners on remand
from the Supreme Court, EME Homer
City II, 795 F.3d 118. This decision
largely upheld EPA’s approach to
addressing interstate transport in
CSAPR, leaving the rule in place and
affirming EPA’s interpretation of various
56 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
57 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No.
11–1302 (D.C. Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No.
1417012 (denying the EPA’s motion for rehearing
en banc).
58 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133
S. Ct. 2857 (2013) (granting the EPA’s and other
parties’ petitions for certiorari).
59 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134
S. Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
statutory provisions and EPA’s technical
decisions. The decision also remands
the rule without vacatur for
reconsideration of EPA’s emissions
budgets for certain states. In particular
and as discussed in more detail in
section III, the court declared invalid
the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets of 11 states, holding
that those budgets over-control with
respect to the downwind air quality
problems to which those states were
linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The
court’s decision explicitly applies to 11
states: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. Id. at 129–
30, 138. The court also remanded
without vacatur the SO2 annual
emissions budgets for four states
(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and
Texas) for reconsideration. Id. at 129,
138. The court instructed the EPA to act
‘‘promptly’’ in addressing these issues
on remand. Id. at 132.
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also
gives the Administrator of the EPA
general authority to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out
her functions under the Act.60 Pursuant
to this section, the EPA has authority to
clarify the applicability of CAA
requirements. In this action, among
other things, the EPA is clarifying the
applicability of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
by identifying NOX emissions in certain
states that must be prohibited pursuant
to this section with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS promulgated in 2008.
In particular, the EPA is proposing to
use its authority under sections 110 and
301 to promulgate FIPs that establish or
revise EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets for 23 eastern states
to mitigate their significant contribution
to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in another state. As
described in more detail later in this
notice, generally the EPA is proposing
to update each affected state’s FIP,
including revising the existing CSAPR
budgets.61 The EPA is also proposing to
respond to the court’s remand in EME
Homer City II with respect to the
remanded NOX ozone-season emissions
budgets.
60 42
U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR
ozone season requirement under this proposal. The
remaining 22 states were included in the original
CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
61 One
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75719
2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered
by the Proposed Rule
a. Status of State Good Neighbor SIPs for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
As discussed above, all states have an
obligation to submit SIPs that address
the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2) within 3 years of promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. With
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
states were required to submit SIPs
addressing the good neighbor provision
by March 12, 2011. If the EPA finds that
a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet
its statutory obligation to address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if EPA
disapproves a good neighbor SIP, then
the EPA has not only the authority but
the obligation, pursuant to section
110(c)(1), to promulgate a FIP to address
the CAA requirement within 2 years of
the finding or disapproval.
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published
a rule finding that 24 states failed to
make complete submissions that
address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate
transport of pollution as to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July
13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015).
The finding action triggered a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to
address the good neighbor provision for
these states by August 12, 2017. The
states included in this finding of failure
to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West
Virginia.
Since the EPA issued the findings
notice, EPA has received a SIP
submission addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS from the state of Maine on
which the EPA has not yet proposed
action.
Several additional states—
Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, New York,
Delaware, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas,
Wisconsin, and the District of
Columbia—have previously submitted
SIPs to address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. To the extent that the
EPA has not finalized action on these
submitted SIPs, these states can evaluate
their submissions in light of this
proposal and the actions we are taking
to reduce interstate ozone transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to a
judgment issued on May 15, 2015, the
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75720
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EPA is required to take final action on
the interstate transport SIPs for
Nebraska and North Dakota by January
29, 2016, and for Maryland, Texas, Ohio
and Indiana by June 7, 2016.62 In the
event that the EPA finalizes disapproval
or partial disapproval of any of these
SIPs, that action would trigger the EPA’s
FIP authority to implement the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision for those states. Alternatively,
if any of these states withdraws its 2008
ozone interstate transport SIP submittal,
the EPA plans to issue a separate notice
of finding of failure to submit for these
states and will finalize FIPs as
appropriate.
On March 7, 2013, the EPA finalized
action on the State of Kentucky’s SIP
submission addressing, among other
things, the good neighbor provision
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.63 The EPA disapproved the
submission as to the good neighbor
requirements. In the notice, the EPA
explained that the disapproval of the
good neighbor portion of the state’s
infrastructure SIP submission did not
trigger a mandatory duty for the EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address these
requirements.64 Citing the D.C. Circuit’s
decision EME Homer City Generation v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), the 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 the EPA first defines a
state’s obligations pursuant to that
section.65 Therefore, because a good
neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone
standard was not at that time required,
the EPA indicated that its disapproval
action would not trigger an obligation
for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to
address the interstate transport
requirements.66
On April 30, 2013, the Sierra Club
filed a petition for review of the EPA’s
action based on the Agency’s conclusion
that the FIP clock was not triggered by
the disapproval of Kentucky’s good
neighbor SIP.67 As described above, on
April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
issued a decision reversing and vacating
the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME
Homer City. Following the Supreme
Court decision, the EPA requested, and
the court granted, vacatur and remand
of the portion of the EPA’s final action
62 See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
4:14–cv–05091–YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
63 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013).
64 Id. at 14683.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546 (6th Cir.,
filed Apr. 30, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
that determined that the FIP obligation
was not triggered by the disapproval.68
In this notice, the EPA is proposing to
correct the portion of the disapproval
notice indicating that the FIP clock
would not be triggered by the SIP
disapproval. The EPA believes that the
EPA’s obligation to develop a FIP was
triggered on the date of the judgment
issued by the Supreme Court in EPA v.
EME Homer City, June 2, 2014, and the
EPA is obligated to issue a FIP at any
time within two years of that date. The
EPA does not believe that the FIP
obligation was triggered as of the date of
the SIP disapproval because the
controlling law as of that date was the
D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer
City, which held that states had no
obligation to submit a SIP and the EPA
had no authority to issue a FIP until the
EPA first quantified each state’s
emission reduction obligation under the
good neighbor provision. Accordingly,
the most reasonable conclusion is that
the EPA’s FIP obligation was triggered
when the Supreme Court clarified the
state and federal obligations with
respect to the good neighbor provision.
Thus, the EPA proposes to find that the
FIP obligation was triggered as of June
2, 2014, and that the EPA is obligated
to promulgate a FIP that corrects the
deficiency by June 2, 2016.
b. States Submitting Transport SIPs
Before FIP Is Finalized
The EPA recognizes that some states
are currently developing SIP
submissions or revising their submitted
SIPs to address the good neighbor
provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA encourages SIP
development and will continue to assist
states in developing transport SIPs. As
noted above, the EPA is subject to a
court order requiring final action on
certain state SIPs by January 29, and
June 7, 2016.
The fact that the EPA is proposing a
FIP for any state does not suggest that
the EPA has determined that the state’s
submittal is not approvable. If EPA
finalizes approval of a state’s good
neighbor SIP before the FIP is applied,
the FIP that is now being proposed for
that state would no longer be necessary.
Further, the EPA notes that the
remedy being proposed in this notice
are not the only means a state has to
mitigate interstate ozone transport
under the good neighbor provision.
States could submit measures that
strengthen their current SIPs and
achieve reductions that are similar to, or
more efficacious in eliminating
68 Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13–3546,
Document No. 74–1 (Mar. 13, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
significant transport than, those that
would be achieved by the FIPs proposed
in this action. The EPA strongly
encourages such strengthening actions.
If a state submits a SIP that is approved
(in whole or in part) by the EPA via
notice-and-comment rulemaking and
that achieves ozone season NOX
emission reductions and/or establishes
EGU NOX ozone emissions budgets
approximately equivalent to those
identified by EPA as achievable by
2017, the EPA does not anticipate
subjecting the state to the EPA’s partial
remedy in this FIP action.
V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality
and Upwind-State Contributions
In this section, we describe the air
quality modeling performed to (1)
identify locations where we expect there
to be nonattainment or maintenance
problems for 8-hour ozone for the 2017
analytic year chosen for this proposal,
and (2) quantify the contributions from
anthropogenic emissions from upwind
states to downwind ozone
concentrations at monitoring sites
projected to be in nonattainment or have
maintenance problems in 2017 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Air quality
modeling to assess the health and
welfare benefits of the emissions
reductions expected to result from this
proposal is described in section VIII.
This section includes information on
the air quality modeling platform used
in support of the proposed rule with a
focus on the base year and future base
case emission inventories. We also
provide the projection of 2017 ozone
concentrations and the interstate
contributions for 8-hour ozone. The Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document (AQM TSD) in the docket for
this proposed rule contains more
detailed information on the air quality
modeling aspects of this rulemaking.
On August 4, 2015, the EPA
published a Notice of Data Availability
(80 FR 46271) requesting comment on
the air quality modeling platform and
air quality modeling results that are
being used for this proposed rule.
Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA
requested comment on the data and
methodologies related to the 2011 and
2017 emissions and the air quality
modeling to project 2017 concentrations
and contributions. Comments received
on that data via the NODA will be
considered for the final rule.
A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling
Platform
The EPA performed air quality
modeling for three emissions scenarios:
A 2011 base year, a 2017 baseline, and
a 2017 illustrative control case that
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reflects the emission reductions
expected from the proposed rule.69 We
selected 2011 as the base year to reflect
the most recent National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). In addition, the
meteorological conditions during the
summer of 2011 were generally
conducive for ozone formation across
much of the U.S., particularly the
eastern U.S. For example, as described
in the AQM TSD, an analysis of
meteorological-adjusted trends in
seasonal mean ozone for the period
2000 through 2012 indicates that, on a
regional basis, the summer of 2011 was
typical, in terms of the presence of
conditions conducive to ozone
formation, of high ozone years in the
eastern U.S. Additional analyses of
meteorological conditions during the
summer of 2011 in comparison to
conditions during several other recent
years can be found in the AQM TSD.
The use of meteorological data
representing conditions that are
conducive for ozone formation is
consistent with the EPA’s modeling
guidance for attainment
demonstrations.70 As noted above, we
selected 2017 as the projected analysis
year to coincide with the attainment
date for moderate areas under the 2008
ozone NAAQS. We used the 2017
baseline emissions in our air quality
modeling to identify future
nonattainment and maintenance
locations and to quantify the
contributions of emissions from upwind
states to 8-hour ozone concentrations at
downwind locations. We used the air
quality modeling of the 2017 baseline
and 2017 illustrative control case
emissions to estimate the air quality
impacts and health benefits of this
proposal.
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)
version 6.11 71 to simulate pollutant
concentrations for the 2011 base year
and the 2017 future year scenarios.
CAMx is a grid cell-based, multipollutant photochemical model that
simulates the formation and fate of
69 The 2017 illustrative control case is relevant to
the EPA’s policy analysis discussed in section VI
and to the benefits and costs assessment discussed
in section VIII of this preamble. It is not used to
identify nonattainment or maintenance receptors or
quantify the contributions from upwind states to
these receptors.
70 ‘‘Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze’’ U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. December
2014. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/
guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance2014.pdf.
71 Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions Version 6.11 User’s Guide. Environ
International Corporation. Novato, CA. December,
2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
ozone and fine particles in the
atmosphere. The CAMx model contains
certain probing tools including source
apportionment techniques that are
designed to quantify the contribution of
emissions from various sources and
areas to ozone in other downwind
locations. The CAMx model
applications were performed for a
modeling region (i.e., modeling domain)
that covers the contiguous 48 states, the
District of Columbia, and adjacent
portions of Canada and Mexico using a
horizontal resolution of 12 x 12 km. A
map of the air quality modeling domain
is provided in the AQM TSD.
The 2011-based air quality modeling
platform includes 2011 base year
emissions and future year projections of
these emissions and 2011 meteorology
for air quality modeling with CAMx. In
the remainder of this section, we
provide an overview of (1) the 2011 and
2017 emissions inventories, (2) the
methods for projecting future
nonattainment and maintenance along
with a list of 2017 baseline
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in the eastern U.S., (3) the
approach to developing metrics to
measure interstate contributions to 8hour ozone, and (4) the predicted
interstate contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance in the
eastern U.S. We also identify which
predicted interstate contributions are at
or above the CSAPR screening
threshold, which we are proposing to
apply for regulation of interstate
transport of ozone for purposes of the
2008 ozone standard.
B. Emission Inventories
The EPA developed emission
inventories for this proposal including
emission estimates for EGUs, non-EGU
point sources, stationary nonpoint
sources, onroad mobile sources,
nonroad mobile sources, wild fires,
prescribed fires, and for biogenic
emissions that are not the result of
human activities. The EPA’s air quality
modeling relies on this comprehensive
set of emission inventories because
emissions from multiple source
categories are needed to model ambient
air quality and to facilitate comparison
of model outputs with ambient
measurements.
To prepare the emission inventories
for air quality modeling, the EPA
processed the emission inventories
using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System
version 3.6.5 to produce the gridded,
hourly, speciated, model-ready
emissions for input to the CAMx air
quality model. Additional information
on the development of the emission
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75721
inventories and on data sets used during
the emissions modeling process are
provided in the TSD ‘‘Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the Version
6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling
Platform,’’ hereafter known as the
‘‘Emissions Modeling TSD.’’ This TSD is
available in the docket for this proposed
rule and at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/emch/#2011.
The EPA published Federal Register
notices on November 27, 2013 (78 FR
70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR
2437), to take comment on the 2011 and
2018 72 emission modeling platforms,
including data and documentation on
the methods used to prepare the
emission inventories for air quality
modeling. Comments were collected for
the 2011 and 2018 emissions modeling
platforms under the dockets EPA–HQ–
OAR–2013–0743 and EPA–HQ–OAR–
2013–0809, respectively. Comments
from those notices that were accepted
by the EPA have been incorporated into
the emission modeling data and
procedures for this proposal as
documented in the Emissions Modeling
TSD. As indicated above, the updated
emission inventories, methodologies,
and data were provided in a Notice of
Data Availability published in the
Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80
FR 46271). Comments received on the
proposal data will be considered for the
final rule.
1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data
Sets
The EPA developed emission data
representing the year 2011 to support air
quality modeling of a base year from
which future air quality could be
forecasted. The EPA used the 2011
National Emission Inventory (NEI)
version 2 (2011NEIv2), released in
March 2015, as the primary basis for the
U.S. inventories supporting the 2011 air
quality modeling. Documentation on the
2011NEIv2 is available in the 2011
National Emissions Inventory, version 2
TSD available in the docket for this
proposed rule and at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011
inventory.html#inventorydoc. The
future base case scenario modeled for
72 During the 2013 and 2014 pre-proposal
comment periods for the modeling platforms, the
attainment deadline for the downwind areas was
established by regulation as December 2018. The
2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule revised
the attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment
areas currently designated as Moderate from
December 2018 to July 2018, which means
attainment determinations have to be based on
design values calculated using 2015 through 2017
ozone season data. Therefore, in its July 2015
NODA and in this proposal, the EPA has adjusted
the future year modeling to be for the year 2017
rather than 2018.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75722
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2017 includes a representation of
changes in activity data and of predicted
emission reductions from on-the-books
actions, including planned emission
control installations and promulgated
federal measures that affect
anthropogenic emissions.73
2. Development of Emission Inventories
for EGUs
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Annual NOX and SO2 emissions for
EGUs in the 2011NEIv2 are based
primarily on data from continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS),
with other EGU pollutants estimated
using emission factors and annual heat
input data reported to the EPA. For
EGUs without CEMS, the EPA used data
submitted to the NEI by the states. For
more information on the details of how
the 2011 EGU emissions were
developed and prepared for air quality
modeling, see the Emissions Modeling
TSD.
The EPA projected future 2017
baseline EGU emissions using version
5.14 of the Integrated Planning Model
(IPM) (https://www.epa.gov/powersector
modeling). IPM, developed by ICF
Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peerreviewed, multi-regional, dynamic,
deterministic linear programming model
of the contiguous U.S. electric power
sector. It provides forecasts of least cost
capacity expansion, electricity dispatch,
and emission control strategies while
meeting energy demand and
environmental, transmission, dispatch,
and reliability constraints. EPA has used
IPM for over two decades to better
understand power sector behavior under
future business-as-usual conditions and
to evaluate the economic and emission
impacts of prospective environmental
policies. The model is designed to
reflect electricity markets as accurately
as possible. The EPA uses the best
available information from utilities,
industry experts, gas and coal market
experts, financial institutions, and
government statistics as the basis for the
detailed power sector modeling in IPM.
The model documentation provides
additional information on the
assumptions discussed here as well as
all other model assumptions and
inputs.74
73 Biogenic emissions and emissions from wild
fires and prescribed fires were held constant
between 2011 and 2017 since (1) these emissions
are tied to the 2011 meteorological conditions and
(2) the focus of this rule is on the contribution from
anthropogenic emissions to projected ozone
nonattainment and maintenance.
74 Detailed information and documentation of
EPA’s Base Case, including all the underlying
assumptions, data sources, and architecture
parameters can be found on EPA’s Web site at:
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
The IPM version 5.14 base case
accounts for comments received as a
result of the NODAs released in 2013
and 2014 (including control
configuration) as well as updated
environmental regulations. This
projected base case accounts for the
effects of the finalized MATS 75 and
CSAPR rules, New Source Review
settlements, and on-the-books state rules
through 2014 76 impacting SO2, NOX,
directly emitted particulate matter, and
CO2, and final actions the EPA has taken
to implement the Regional Haze Rule.
The EPA’s IPM base case also includes
two federal non-air rules affecting EGUs:
The Cooling Water Intake Structure
(Clean Water Act section 316(b)) rule
and the Coal Combustion Residuals
(CCR) rule. Documentation of IPM
version 5.14 is in the docket and
available online at www.epa.gov/
powersectormodeling.
After the receptor and contribution
analyses for this proposal were
underway, the EPA released an updated
IPM base case, version 5.15, and the
final Clean Power Plan (CPP).77 In order
to reflect all on-the-books policies as
well as the most current power sector
modeling data, the EPA performed an
assessment, described in section V–D
below, to reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15
with the CPP in the base case for this
proposal. The EPA plans to use this base
case, including the final CPP, for its
modeling analysis for the final rule.
However, EPA’s analysis for the final
rule may include updated or different
assumptions about the inclusion of the
CPP and the CSAPR phase 2 NOX
ozone-season or SO2 annual emissions
budgets for those states with budgets
that were declared invalid and
remanded to the EPA by the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City II.
In projecting future 2017 baseline
EGU emissions, the EPA adjusted the
2018 IPM version 5.14 base case results
to account for three categories of
differences between 2017 and 2018. The
categories are: (1) Adjusting NOX
emissions for units with SCRs in 2018
but that are assumed not to operate or
be installed in 2017; (2) adding NOX
75 In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court
reversed on narrow grounds a portion of the D.C.
Circuit decision upholding the MATS rule, finding
that EPA erred by not considering cost when
determining that regulation of EGUs was
‘‘appropriate’’ pursuant to CAA section 112(n)(1).
135 S.Ct. 192 (2015). The case was remanded to the
D.C. Circuit for further proceedings, and the MATS
rule currently remains in place.
76 For any specific version of IPM there is a cutoff
date after which it is no longer possible to
incorporate updates into the input databases. For
version 5.14, that cutoff date was November 2014.
77 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units, 80 FR 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions for units that are retiring in
2018 but are projected to operate in
2017; and (3) adjusting NOX emissions
for coal-fired units that are projected to
convert to natural gas (i.e., ‘‘coal-togas’’) in 2018, but are still projected to
burn coal in 2017. These adjustments
were only made to the air quality flat
file outputs of IPM and are discussed in
greater detail in the IPM documentation
found in the docket for this proposed
rule.
3. Development of Emission Inventories
for Non-EGU Point Sources
The 2011 non-EGU point sources in
the 2011 base case inventory match
those in the 2011NEIv2. Details on the
development of the 2011 emission
inventories can be found in the
2011NEIv2 TSD. Prior to air quality
modeling, the emission inventories
must be processed into a format that is
appropriate for the air quality model to
use. Details on the processing of the
emissions for 2011 and on the
development of the 2017 non-EGU
emission inventories are available in the
Emissions Modeling TSD. Projection
factors and percent reductions in this
proposal reflect comments received as a
result of the NODAs in 2013 and 2014,
along with emission reductions due to
national and local rules, control
programs, plant closures, consent
decrees and settlements. Reductions
from several Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
standards are included. Projection
approaches for corn ethanol and
biodiesel plants, refineries and
upstream impacts represent
requirements pursuant to the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA).
For aircraft emissions at airports, the
EPA developed projection factors based
on activity growth projected by the
Federal Aviation Administration
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system,
published in March 2013.
Point source and nonpoint oil and gas
emissions are projected to 2018 using
regional projection factors by product
type using Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) 2014 projections to year 2017.
NOX and VOC reductions that are cobenefits to the NESHAP and New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines (RICE) are reflected
for select source categories. In addition,
Natural Gas Turbines and Process
Heaters NSPS NOX controls and NSPS
Oil and Gas VOC controls are reflected
for select source categories.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
4. Development of Emission Inventories
for Onroad Mobile Sources
The EPA developed the onroad
mobile source emissions for states other
than California using the EPA’s Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
2014. We computed the emissions
within SMOKE by multiplying emission
factors developed using MOVES with
the appropriate activity data. We also
used MOVES emission factors to
estimate emissions from refueling. The
2011 onroad mobile source emissions
used in the inventory for this rule are
similar but not identical to the
2011NEIv2 emissions due to a more
detailed treatment of E–85 emissions in
the 2011 emission modeling platform
used for this rule. Additional
information on the approach for
generating the onroad mobile source
emissions is available in the Emissions
Modeling TSD. Onroad mobile source
emissions for California are consistent
with the emissions submitted by the
state as reflected in the 2011NEIv2.
In the future-year modeling for mobile
sources, we included all national
measures known at the time of
modeling. The future scenarios for
mobile sources reflect projected changes
to fuel usage and onroad mobile control
programs finalized as of the date of the
model run. Finalized rules that are
incorporated into the mobile source
emissions include: Tier 3 Standards
(March 2014), the Light-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013),
Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse
Gas Rule (August 2011), the Renewable
Fuel Standard (February 2010), the
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April
2010), the Corporate-Average Fuel
Economy standards for 2008–2011
(April 2010), the 2007 Onroad HeavyDuty Rule (February 2009), and the
Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule
(MSAT2) (February 2007). Impacts of
rules that were in effect in 2011 are
reflected in the 2011 base year
emissions at a level that corresponds to
the extent to which each rule had
penetrated into the fleet and fuel supply
by the year 2011. Local control
programs such as the California LEV III
program are included in the onroad
mobile source emissions. Activity data
for onroad mobile sources was projected
using AEO 2014. Because EPA changed
the model year from 2018 to 2017
between its pre-proposal modeling and
the modeling conducted for this
proposal (see footnote 64), and due to
the substantial amount of lead time
required to generate emission factors
with MOVES, the EPA was unable to
directly generate emission factors for
2017 prior to the modeling used to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
support this proposed rule. Therefore,
for this proposal, future year onroad
mobile source emissions were computed
for 2018 and adjusted to 2017 levels
using adjustment factors derived from
national MOVES runs for 2017 and
2018. Emission factors will be generated
directly for 2017 prior to air quality
modeling for the final rule.
5. Development of Emission Inventories
for Commercial Marine Category 3
(Vessel)
The commercial marine category 3
vessel (‘‘C3 marine’’) emissions in the
2011 base case emission inventory for
this proposed rule are consistent with
those in the 2011NEIv2. These
emissions reflect reductions associated
with the Emissions Control Area
proposal to the International Maritime
Organization control strategy (EPA–
420–F–10–041, August 2010);
reductions of NOX, VOC, and CO
emissions for new C3 engines that went
into effect in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits
that went into effect as early as 2010.
The cumulative impacts of these rules
through 2017 are incorporated in the
2017 projected emissions for C3 marine
sources.
6. Development of Emission Inventories
for Other Nonroad Mobile Sources
To develop the nonroad mobile
source emission inventories other than
C3 marine for the modeling platform,
the EPA used monthly, county, and
process level emissions output from the
National Mobile Inventory Model
(NMIM) (see https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
nmim.htm). State-submitted emissions
data for nonroad sources were used for
Texas and California. These emissions
are consistent with those in the
2011NEIv2.
The EPA also used NMIM to project
nonroad mobile emissions for future
years. Development of the future year
nonroad emissions require a substantial
amount of lead time and the emissions
were prepared for the year 2018 before
the model year was changed to 2017
when the attainment date was revised in
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP
Requirements Rule. To develop a 2017
nonroad emissions inventory for this
proposal that accounted for the
difference between 2017 and 2018
emissions levels, we calculated the
nonroad emissions for 2018, and then
adjusted those emissions to 2017 levels
using national adjustment factors
derived from national NMIM runs for
2017 and 2018. Emissions specific to
2017 will be developed for the modeling
that will support the final rule. The
nonroad mobile emission control
programs include reductions to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75723
locomotives, diesel engines and marine
engines, along with standards for fuel
sulfur content and evaporative
emissions. A comprehensive list of
control programs included for mobile
sources is available in the Emissions
Modeling TSD.
7. Development of Emission Inventories
for Nonpoint Sources
The emissions for stationary nonpoint
sources in our 2011 base case emission
inventory are largely consistent with
those in the 2011NEIv2. For more
information on the nonpoint sources in
the 2011 base case inventory, see the
Emissions Modeling TSD and the
2011NEIv2 TSD.
Where states provided EPA with
information about projected control
measures or changes in nonpoint source
emissions, the EPA incorporated those
inputs in its projections. We included
adjustments for state fuel sulfur content
rules for fuel oil in the Northeast.
Projected emissions for portable fuel
containers reflect the impact of
projection factors required by the final
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule
and the EISA, including updates to
cellulosic ethanol plants, ethanol
transport working losses, and ethanol
distribution vapor losses.
The EPA developed regional
projection factors for nonpoint oil and
gas sources by product type based on
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014
projections to year 2018. We reflected
criteria air pollutant (CAP) co-benefit
reductions resulting from the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) and
NSPS rules and Oil and Gas NSPS VOC
controls for select source categories.
Additional details on the projections are
available in the Emissions Modeling
TSD.
C. Air Quality Modeling To Identify
Nonattainment and Maintenance
Receptors
In this section, we describe the air
quality modeling performed to identify
locations where we expect there to be
nonattainment or maintenance problems
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the 2017 analytic future year chosen for
this proposal. We then describe how we
factored current monitored data into the
identification of sites as having either
nonattainment or maintenance concerns
for the purposes of this rulemaking.
These sites are used as the ‘‘receptors’’
for quantifying the contributions of
emissions in upwind states to
nonattainment and maintenance
concerns in downwind locations.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75724
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In this proposed rule, the EPA is
relying on CSAPR’s approach to identify
separate nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in order to give
independent effect to both the
‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina.78 In its decision on remand
from the Supreme Court, the D.C.
Circuit confirmed that EPA’s approach
to identifying maintenance receptors in
CSAPR comported with the court’s prior
instruction to give independent
meaning to the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prong in the good
neighbor provision. EME Homer City II,
795 F.3d at 136.
In CSAPR, the EPA identified
nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites that are projected to
have average design values that exceed
the NAAQS. The EPA separately
identified maintenance receptors as
those receptors that would have
difficulty maintaining the relevant
NAAQS in a scenario that takes into
account historical variability in air
quality at that receptor. The CSAPR
approach for identifying nonattainment
and maintenance receptors relied only
upon air quality model projections of
measured design values. In CSAPR, if
the average design value in the analysis
year was projected to exceed the
NAAQS, then the monitoring site is
identified as a nonattainment receptor
without consideration of whether the
monitoring site is currently measuring
‘‘clean data’’ (i.e., design values below
the NAAQS based on the most recent
three years of measured data). In prior
transport rulemakings, such as the NOX
SIP Call and CAIR, the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas
that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that the EPA projects
will be in nonattainment in the future
compliance year.79 We explained that
we had the most confidence in our
projections of nonattainment for those
counties that also measure
nonattainment for the most recent
period of available ambient data. In
CSAPR, we were compelled to deviate
from this practice of incorporating
monitored data into EPA’s evaluation of
projected nonattainment receptors
because the most recent monitoring data
then available reflected large emission
78 531 F.3d at 910–911 (holding that the EPA
must give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
79 63 FR at 57375, 57377 (Oct. 27, 1998); 70 FR
at 25241 (May 12, 2005). See also North Carolina,
531 F.3d at 913–914 (affirming as reasonable EPA’s
approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
reductions from CAIR, which CSAPR
was designed to replace. As recently
affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, it was
therefore reasonable for the EPA to
decide not to compare monitored data
reflecting CAIR emissions reductions to
its modeling projections that instead
excluded CAIR from its baseline.80
As the EPA is not replacing an
existing transport program in this
rulemaking proposal, we are proposing
to consider current monitored data as
part of the process for identifying
projected nonattainment receptors for
this rulemaking. Accordingly, in this
rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to
return to our prior practice of comparing
our modeled nonattainment projections
to current monitored air quality. For the
purposes of this rulemaking, the EPA
proposes to identify as nonattainment
receptors those monitors that both
currently measure nonattainment and
that the EPA projects will be in
nonattainment in 2017.
As noted above, in CSAPR the EPA
identified maintenance receptors as
those receptors that would have
difficulty maintaining the relevant
NAAQS in a scenario that takes into
account historical variability in air
quality at that receptor. The variability
in air quality was determined by
evaluating the ‘‘maximum’’ future
design value at each receptor based on
a projection of the maximum measured
design value over the relevant period.
The EPA interprets the projected
maximum future design value to be a
potential future air quality outcome
consistent with the meteorology that
yielded maximum measured
concentrations in the ambient data set
analyzed for that receptor. The EPA also
recognizes that previously experienced
meteorological conditions (e.g.,
dominant wind direction, temperatures,
air mass patterns) promoting ozone
formation that led to maximum
concentrations in the measured data
may reoccur in the future. The
maximum design value gives a
reasonable projection of future air
quality at the receptor under a scenario
in which such conditions do, in fact,
reoccur. The projected maximum design
value is used to identify upwind
emissions that, under those
circumstances, could interfere with the
downwind area’s ability to maintain the
NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA assesses
the magnitude of the maximum
projected design value for 2017 at each
receptor in relation to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and, where such a value
exceeds the NAAQS, EPA determines
80 EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 135–36; see also
76 FR 48208 at 48230–31 (August 8, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that receptor to be a ‘‘maintenance’’
receptor for purposes of defining
interference with maintenance in this
proposal, consistent with the method
used in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in EME Homer City II.81 That is,
monitoring sites with a maximum
design value that exceeds the NAAQS
are projected to have a maintenance
problem in 2017.
Consistent with the CSAPR
methodology, monitoring sites with a
projected maximum design value that
exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is
below the NAAQS, are identified as
maintenance-only receptors. In
addition, those sites that are currently
measuring clean data, but are projected
to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by
definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the
standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors. We are not
proposing that monitored data have any
effect on the EPA’s determination of
maintenance receptors using the CSAPR
method since even those receptor sites
that are not currently monitoring
violations are still subject to conditions
that may allow violations to reoccur and
therefore have future maintenance
concerns.
The following is a brief summary of
the procedures for projecting future-year
8-hour ozone average and maximum
design values to 2017. Consistent with
the EPA’s modeling guidance we use the
air quality modeling results in a
‘‘relative’’ sense to project future
concentrations. That is, the ratios of
future year model predictions to base
year model predictions are used to
adjust ambient ozone design values 82
up or down depending on the relative
(percent) change in model predictions
for each location. The modeling
guidance recommends using measured
ozone concentrations for the 5-year
period centered on the base year as the
air quality data starting point for future
year projections. This average design
value is used to dampen the effects of
inter-annual variability in meteorology
on ozone concentrations and to provide
a reasonable projection of future air
quality at the receptor under ‘‘average’’
conditions. Because the base year for
this proposal is 2011, we are using the
base period 2009–2013 ambient ozone
design value data in order to project
81 See
795 F.3d at 136.
ozone design value at a particular
monitoring site is the 3-year average of the annual
4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentration at that site.
82 The
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2017 average design values in a manner
consistent with the modeling guidance.
The approach for projecting future
ozone design values involved the
projection of an average of up to 3
design value periods, which include the
years 2009–2013 (design values for
2009–2011, 2010–2012, and 2011–
2013). The 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and
2011–2013 design values are accessible
at www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
The average of the 3 design values
creates a ‘‘5-year weighted average’’
value. The 5-year weighted average
values were then projected to 2017. To
project 8-hour ozone design values we
used the 2011 base year and 2017 future
base-case model-predicted ozone
concentrations to calculate relative
reduction factors (RRFs) for the location
of each monitoring site. The RRFs were
applied to the 2009–2013 average ozone
design values and the individual design
values for 2009–2011, 2010–2012, and
2011–2013 through the following steps:
Step 1: For each monitoring site, we
calculate the average concentration
across the 10 days with the 10 highest
8-hour daily maximum ozone
predictions in the 2017 baseline 83 using
the predictions in the nine grid cells
that include or surround the location of
the monitoring site. The RRF for a site
is the ratio of the mean prediction in the
future year to the mean prediction in the
2011 base year. The RRFs were
calculated on a site-by-site basis.84
Step 2: The RRF for each site is then
multiplied by the 2009–2013 5-year
weighted average ambient design value
for that site, yielding an estimate of the
future average design value at that
particular monitoring location.
Step 3: We calculate the maximum
future design value by multiplying the
RRF for each site by the three base
periods (2009–2011, 2010–2012, and
2011–2013) separately. The highest of
the three future values is the projected
maximum design value. Consistent with
the truncation and rounding procedures
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the
projected design values are truncated to
integers in units of ppb.85
Projected design values that are
greater than or equal to 76 ppb are
considered to be violating the NAAQS
in 2017. For those sites that are
projected to be violating the NAAQS
based on the average design values in
2017, we examined measured design
values for the period 2012–2014, which
is the most recent available measured
design values at the time of this
proposal. As noted above, we are
proposing to identify nonattainment
receptors in this rulemaking as those
sites that are violating the NAAQS
based on current measured air quality
and also have projected average design
values of 76 ppb or greater.
Maintenance-only receptors therefore
include both (1) those sites with
projected average design values above
the NAAQS that are currently
measuring clean data and (2) those sites
with projected average design values
below the level of the NAAQS, but with
projected maximum design values of 76
ppb or greater. In addition to the
maintenance-only receptors, the 2017
ozone nonattainment receptors are also
maintenance receptors because the
75725
maximum design values for each of
these sites is always greater than or
equal to the average design value. The
monitoring sites that we project to be
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors for the ozone NAAQS in the
2017 baseline are used for assessing the
contribution of emissions in upwind
states to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance of ozone NAAQS as part of
this proposal.
Table V.C–1 contains the 2009–2013
base period average and maximum 8hour ozone design values, the 2017
baseline average and maximum design
values, and the 2012–2014 design
values for the 8 sites in the eastern U.S.
projected to be 2017 nonattainment
receptors. Table V.C–2 contains this
same information for the 6 maintenanceonly sites in the eastern U.S. that are
projected nonattainment but currently
measuring clean data. Table V.C–3
contains this same information for the
23 maintenance-only sites in the eastern
U.S. that are projected to have average
design values below the NAAQS, but
maximum design values above the
NAAQS. The design values for all
monitoring sites in the U.S. are
provided in docket item EPA–HQ–
OAR–2015–0500–0006. Additional
details on the approach for projecting
average and maximum design values are
provided in the modeling guidance,
Model Attainment Test Software 86
documentation, and the AQM TSD. The
EPA is seeking comment on the
proposed methods for determining
projected nonattainment and
maintenance receptors.
TABLE V.C–1—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012–
2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S.
[Nonattainment receptors]
Average
design value
2009–2013
State
County
90013007 ............
90019003 ............
90099002 ............
480391004 ..........
481210034 ..........
484392003 ..........
484393009 ..........
551170006 ..........
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Monitor ID
Connecticut ........
Connecticut ........
Connecticut ........
Texas .................
Texas .................
Texas .................
Texas .................
Wisconsin ...........
Fairfield ...............
Fairfield ...............
New Haven .........
Brazoria ..............
Denton ................
Tarrant ................
Tarrant ................
Sheboygan .........
83 As specified in the attainment demonstration
modeling guidance, if there are fewer than 10
modeled days greater than or equal to (>=) 70 ppb,
then the threshold is lowered in 1 ppb increments
(to as low as 60 ppb) until there are 10 days. If there
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Maximum
design value
2009–2013
84.3
83.7
85.7
88.0
84.3
87.3
86.0
84.3
89.0
87.0
89.0
89.0
87.0
90.0
86.0
87.0
are fewer than 5 days >= 60 ppb, then an RRF
calculation is not completed for that site.
84 Sites with insufficient valid design values were
not included in the calculation. In addition, sites
with fewer than 5 days with predicted 8-hour ozone
>= 60 ppb in 2018 were dropped from the analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Average
design value
2017
77.1
78.0
77.2
81.4
76.9
79.6
78.6
77.0
Maximum
design value
2017
81.4
81.1
80.2
82.3
79.4
82.1
78.6
79.4
2012–2014
design value
84.0
85.0
81.0
80.0
81.0
77.0
80.0
81.0
85 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P to Part 50—
Interpretation of the Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.
86 Abt Associates, 2014. User’s Guide: Modeled
Attainment Test Software. https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75726
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.C–2—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012–
2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. THAT ARE PROJECTED NONATTAINMENT BUT CURRENTLY MEASURING CLEAN DATA
[Maintenance-only receptors]
Monitor ID
240251001
360850067
361030002
390610006
482011034
482011039
Average
design value
2009–2013
State
........
........
........
........
........
........
County
Maryland ...........
New York ..........
New York ..........
Ohio ..................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Harford ..............
Richmond ..........
Suffolk ...............
Hamilton ............
Harris ................
Harris ................
Maximum
design value
2009–2013
90.0
81.3
83.3
82.0
81.0
82.0
Average
design value
2017
93.0
83.0
85.0
85.0
82.0
84.0
Maximum
design value
2017
81.3
76.3
79.2
76.3
76.8
78.2
84.0
77.8
80.8
79.1
77.8
80.2
2012–2014
design value
75.0
73.0
73.0
75.0
72.0
72.0
TABLE V.C–3—AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM 2009–2013 AND 2017 BASELINE 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES AND 2012–
2014 DESIGN VALUES (ppb) AT PROJECTED MAINTENANCE SITES IN THE EASTERN U.S. BASED ON THE CSAPR
METHODOLOGY
[Maintenance-only receptors]
Average
design value
2009–2013
Monitor ID
State
County
90010017 ..........
211110067 ........
211850004 ........
240053001 ........
260050003 ........
261630019 ........
340071001 ........
340150002 ........
340230011 ........
340290006 ........
360810124 ........
420031005 ........
421010024 ........
480850005 ........
481130069 ........
481130075 ........
481211032 ........
482010024 ........
482010026 ........
482010055 ........
482011050 ........
484390075 ........
484393011 ........
Connecticut .......
Kentucky ...........
Kentucky ...........
Maryland ...........
Michigan ............
Michigan ............
New Jersey .......
New Jersey .......
New Jersey .......
New Jersey .......
New York ..........
Pennsylvania .....
Pennsylvania .....
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Texas ................
Fairfield .............
Jefferson ...........
Oldham .............
Baltimore ...........
Allegan ..............
Wayne ...............
Camden ............
Gloucester .........
Middlesex ..........
Ocean ...............
Queens .............
Allegheny ..........
Philadelphia ......
Collin .................
Dallas ................
Dallas ................
Denton ..............
Harris ................
Harris ................
Harris ................
Harris ................
Tarrant ..............
Tarrant ..............
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind
States
1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify
Upwind State Contributions
This section documents the
procedures the EPA used to quantify the
impact of emissions from specific
upwind states on 2017 8-hour design
values for identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. The EPA used CAMx
photochemical source apportionment
modeling to quantify the impact of
emissions in specific upwind states on
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors for 8-hour ozone.
CAMx employs enhanced source
apportionment techniques that track the
formation and transport of ozone from
specific emissions sources and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Maximum
design value
2009–2013
80.3
82.0
82.0
80.7
82.7
78.7
82.7
84.3
81.3
82.0
78.0
80.7
83.3
82.7
79.7
82.0
82.7
80.3
77.3
81.3
78.3
82.0
80.7
Average
design value
2017
83.0
85.0
86.0
84.0
86.0
81.0
87.0
87.0
85.0
85.0
80.0
82.0
87.0
84.0
84.0
83.0
84.0
83.0
80.0
83.0
80.0
83.0
83.0
calculates the contribution of sources
and precursors to ozone for individual
receptor locations. The strength of the
photochemical model source
apportionment technique is that all
modeled ozone at a given receptor
location in the modeling domain is
tracked back to specific sources of
emissions and boundary conditions to
fully characterize culpable sources.
The EPA performed nationwide, statelevel ozone source apportionment
modeling using the CAMx Ozone
Source Apportionment Technology/
Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique 87 to
87 As part of this technique, ozone formed from
reactions between biogenic VOC and NOX with
anthropogenic NOX and VOC are assigned to the
anthropogenic emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maximum
design value
2017
75.8
75.8
73.7
73.2
75.5
74.0
74.2
75.1
73.0
73.9
75.7
75.3
75.1
74.9
74.0
75.8
75.1
75.9
73.5
75.4
74.6
75.5
74.5
78.4
78.6
77.3
76.2
78.5
76.2
78.1
77.5
76.3
76.6
77.6
76.5
78.4
76.0
78.0
76.7
76.3
78.5
76.1
77.0
76.2
76.4
76.6
2012–2014
design value
82.0
Incomplete Data
74.0
72.0
83.0
74.0
76.0
76.0
74.0
75.0
72.0
77.0
75.0
78.0
78.0
77.0
79.0
72.0
67.0
75.0
72.0
79.0
75.0
quantify the contribution of 2017
baseline NOX and VOC emissions from
all sources in each state to projected
2017 ozone concentrations at air quality
monitoring sites. In the source
apportionment model run, we tracked
the ozone formed from each of the
following contribution categories (i.e.,
‘‘tags’’):
• States—anthropogenic NOX and
VOC emissions from each state tracked
individually (emissions from all
anthropogenic sectors in a given state
were combined);
• Biogenics—biogenic NOX and VOC
emissions domain-wide (i.e., not by
state);
• Boundary Concentrations—
concentrations transported into the
modeling domain;
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
• Tribes—the emissions from those
tribal lands for which we have point
source inventory data in the 2011 NEI
(we did not model the contributions
from individual tribes);
• Canada and Mexico—
anthropogenic emissions from sources
in the portions of Canada and Mexico
included in the modeling domain (we
did not model the contributions from
Canada and Mexico separately);
• Fires—combined emissions from
wild and prescribed fires domain-wide
(i.e., not by state); and
• Offshore—combined emissions
from offshore marine vessels and
offshore drilling platforms.
The contribution modeling provided
contributions to ozone from
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions
in each state, individually. The
contributions to ozone from chemical
reactions between biogenic NOX and
VOC emissions were modeled and
assigned to the ‘‘biogenic’’ category. The
contributions from wild fire and
prescribed fire NOX and VOC emissions
were modeled and assigned to the
‘‘fires’’ category. That is, the
contributions from the ‘‘biogenic’’ and
‘‘fires’’ categories are not assigned to
individual states nor are they included
in the state contributions.
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run
was performed for the period May 1
through September 30 using the
projected 2017 baseline emissions and
2011 meteorology for this time period.
The hourly contributions 88 from each
tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour
average contributions corresponding to
the time period of the 8-hour daily
maximum concentration on each day in
the 2017 model simulation. This step
was performed for those model grid
cells containing monitoring sites in
order to obtain 8-hour average
contributions for each day at the
location of each site. The modelpredicted contributions were then
applied in a relative sense to quantify
the contributions to the 2017 average
design value at each site. The resulting
2017 contributions from each tag to each
monitoring site in the eastern and
western U.S. along with additional
75727
details on the source apportionment
modeling and the procedures for
calculating contributions can be found
in the AQM TSD. The EPA is seeking
comment on the methodologies for
calculating ozone contributions.
The average contribution metric is
intended to provide a reasonable
representation of the contribution from
individual states to the projected 2017
design value, based on modeled
transport patterns and other
meteorological conditions generally
associated with modeled high ozone
concentrations at the receptor. An
average contribution metric constructed
in this manner is beneficial since the
magnitude of the contributions is
directly related to the magnitude of the
design value at each site.
The largest contribution from each
state in the East to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment receptors in downwind
states is provided in Table V.D–1. The
largest contribution from each state in
the East to 8-hour ozone maintenanceonly receptors in downwind states is
also provided in Table V.D–1.
TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS
FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S.
Largest downwind
contribution to
nonattainment
receptors
for ozone
(ppb)
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Upwind state
Largest downwind
contribution to
maintenance
receptors
for ozone
(ppb)
0.79
0.98
0.00
0.37
0.06
0.54
0.47
17.48
6.24
0.61
0.80
0.75
3.09
0.00
2.07
0.10
2.69
0.40
0.78
1.63
0.24
0.02
8.84
16.96
0.55
0.11
2.18
1.70
9.39
0.02
0.16
1.28
2.15
0.46
2.23
0.73
0.72
0.58
23.17
14.95
0.85
1.03
11.17
4.23
0.08
7.11
0.37
1.79
0.47
1.48
3.69
0.36
0.07
12.38
17.21
0.93
0.28
7.92
2.46
15.93
0.08
0.21
AL .................................................................................................................................................................
AR ................................................................................................................................................................
CT ................................................................................................................................................................
DE ................................................................................................................................................................
DC ................................................................................................................................................................
FL .................................................................................................................................................................
GA ................................................................................................................................................................
IL ..................................................................................................................................................................
IN .................................................................................................................................................................
IA ..................................................................................................................................................................
KS ................................................................................................................................................................
KY ................................................................................................................................................................
LA .................................................................................................................................................................
ME ................................................................................................................................................................
MD ...............................................................................................................................................................
MA ................................................................................................................................................................
MI .................................................................................................................................................................
MN ...............................................................................................................................................................
MS ................................................................................................................................................................
MO ...............................................................................................................................................................
NE ................................................................................................................................................................
NH ................................................................................................................................................................
NJ .................................................................................................................................................................
NY ................................................................................................................................................................
NC ................................................................................................................................................................
ND ................................................................................................................................................................
OH ................................................................................................................................................................
OK ................................................................................................................................................................
PA ................................................................................................................................................................
RI .................................................................................................................................................................
SC ................................................................................................................................................................
88 Contributions from anthropogenic emissions
under ‘‘NOX-limited’’ and ‘‘VOC-limited’’ chemical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
regimes were combined to obtain the net
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contribution from NOX and VOC anthropogenic
emissions in each state.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75728
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.D–1—LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND 8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS
FOR EACH STATE IN THE EASTERN U.S.—Continued
Largest downwind
contribution to
nonattainment
receptors
for ozone
(ppb)
Upwind state
Largest downwind
contribution to
maintenance
receptors
for ozone
(ppb)
0.08
0.51
2.44
0.01
1.87
0.95
0.34
0.12
1.67
2.95
0.05
5.29
3.11
2.59
SD ................................................................................................................................................................
TN ................................................................................................................................................................
TX ................................................................................................................................................................
VT ................................................................................................................................................................
VA ................................................................................................................................................................
WV ...............................................................................................................................................................
WI .................................................................................................................................................................
2. Application of Screening Threshold
The EPA then evaluated the
magnitude of the contributions from
each upwind state to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. In this proposal, the EPA uses
an air quality screening threshold to
identify upwind states that contribute to
downwind ozone concentrations in
amounts sufficient to ‘‘link’’ them to
these to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors.
As discussed above in section III, the
EPA is proposing to establish the air
quality screening threshold calculated
as one percent of the NAAQS.
Specifically for this rule, we propose
calculating an 8-hour ozone value for
this air quality threshold of 0.75 ppb as
the quantification of one percent of the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
States in the East 89 whose
contributions to a specific receptor meet
or exceed the screening threshold are
considered linked to that receptor; those
states’ ozone contributions and
emissions (and available emission
reductions) are analyzed further, as
described in section VI, to determine
whether and what emissions reductions
might be required from each state.
States in the East whose contributions
are below the threshold are not included
in the proposed rule and are considered
to make insignificant contributions to
projected downwind air quality
problems. However, for eastern states
for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs
in this action, the EPA notes that
updates to the modeling for the final
rule could change the analysis as to
which states have contributions that
meet or exceed the screening threshold.
In the event that air quality modeling
conducted for the final rule
demonstrates that states that contribute
amounts below the threshold in the
proposal are projected to contribute
amounts greater than or equal to the
threshold in the final rule modeling, the
EPA instead proposes to finalize revised
budgets (presented with this rulemaking
for comment) for whichever of those
states may be identified as linked to
such air quality problems. The EPA has
calculated emissions budgets for all
eastern states that we are proposing to
apply to those states if, and only if, the
final rule air quality modeling identifies
a linkage as just described. These
budgets are available in the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis TSD.
Based on the maximum downwind
contributions in Table V.D–1, the
following states contribute at or above
the 0.75 ppb threshold to downwind
nonattainment receptors: Alabama,
Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Based on the maximum
downwind contributions in Table
V.D–1, the following states contribute at
or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to
downwind maintenance-only receptors:
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The linkages between each upwind state
and downwind nonattainment receptors
and maintenance-only receptors in the
eastern U.S. are provided in Table
V.D–2 and Table V.D–3, respectively.
TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN
U.S.
Downwind nonattainment receptors
AL ......................
AR ......................
IL ........................
IN .......................
KS ......................
KY ......................
LA ......................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Upwind state
Tarrant Co., TX (484392003).
Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009).
Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009);
Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
Brazoria Co., TX (480391004).
MD .....................
MI .......................
MS .....................
89 As discussed in section III this assessment
shows that there are problem receptors in the West
where western states contribute amounts greater
than or equal to the screening threshold used to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
evaluate eastern states (i.e., 1 percent of the
NAAQS). However, there may be additional criteria
to evaluate regarding transported air pollution in
the West and upwind state obligations. The EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states,
but seeks comment on whether to include western
states in this rule.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
75729
TABLE V.D–2—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATE AND DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT RECEPTORS IN THE EASTERN
U.S.—Continued
Upwind state
Downwind nonattainment receptors
MO .....................
NJ ......................
NY ......................
OH .....................
Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX (484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002).
Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT (90099002).
Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield Co., CT (90019003).
OK .....................
PA ......................
TX ......................
VA ......................
WV .....................
TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE
EASTERN U.S.
Upwind state
Downwind maintenance receptors
AL .............................
AR ............................
Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010055).
Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075);
Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050);
Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011).
Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI
(261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005);
Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011039).
Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD
(240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124);
Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Allegan Co., MI (260050003).
Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011).
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Hamilton
Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Collin Co., TX (480850005); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075); Denton Co., TX (481211032);
Harris Co., TX (482010024); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011034);
Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX (482011050); Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Harford Co., MD
(240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006);
Allegheny Co., PA (420031005).
Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039).
Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris Co., TX (482011039); Harris Co., TX
(482011050).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ
(340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006).
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Jefferson Co., KY (211110067); Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Baltimore Co., MD
(240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Wayne Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124);
Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX (481130075);
Denton Co., TX (481211032); Harris Co., TX (482010026); Harris Co., TX (482011034); Harris Co., TX (482011039);
Tarrant Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co., TX (484393011).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002).
Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
DE ............................
IL ..............................
IN ..............................
IA ..............................
KS .............................
KY .............................
LA .............................
MD ............................
MI .............................
MS ............................
MO ............................
NJ .............................
NY ............................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
NC ............................
OH ............................
OK ............................
PA .............................
TN .............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75730
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.D–3—LINKAGES BETWEEN EACH UPWIND STATES AND DOWNWIND MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS IN THE
EASTERN U.S.—Continued
Upwind state
Downwind maintenance receptors
TX .............................
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond
Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005);
Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond
Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001); Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens Co., NY (360810124); Richmond
Co., NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY (361030002); Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Allegheny Co., PA (420031005);
Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI (261630019).
VA .............................
WV ............................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
WI .............................
As discussed previously, after the
receptor and contribution analyses for
this proposal were underway, the EPA
released an updated IPM base case,
version 5.15, and the final CPP. In order
to reflect all on-the-books policies as
well as the most current power sector
modeling data, the EPA performed an
assessment to reflect inclusion of IPM
5.15 with the CPP in an ‘‘adjusted’’ base
case for this proposal. All references
below to the ‘‘adjusted base case’’ refer
to the 2017 air quality modeling base
case which has been adjusted to account
for the revised IPM 5.15 with CPP
emissions. This assessment method
relied on the EPA’s air quality modeling
contribution data as well as projected
ozone concentrations from an
illustrative EGU NOX mitigation
scenario. For more information about
these methods, refer to the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Technical
Support Document.
This assessment shows that two
receptors—Hamilton County Ohio
(390610006) and Richmond County
New York (360850067)—that were
projected to have average design values
exceeding the NAAQS in the modeled
2017 baseline, are expected to have
average design values below the
NAAQS with the adjusted base case.
However, these receptors are still
expected to have maximum design
values exceeding the NAAQS with the
adjusted base case. Because both of
these receptors are also considered
maintenance receptors for the purposes
of this proposal, their status as
identified air quality concerns and the
status of states linked to these receptors
is unchanged by the adjusted base case.
This assessment also shows that four
receptors—Allegheny County
Pennsylvania (420031005), Collin
County Texas (480850005), Wayne
County Michigan (261630019), and
Middlesex County New Jersey
(340230011)—that were projected to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
have maximum design values exceeding
the NAAQS in the modeled base case,
are expected to have maximum design
values below the NAAQS with the
adjusted base case. With the adjusted
base case, these sites would not be
considered nonattainment or
maintenance receptors for the purposes
of this proposal. However, because no
state is linked solely to any one of these
sites, changing the status of these
receptors does not impact the scope of
states linked to downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for this proposal.
In addition to evaluating the status of
downwind receptors identified for this
proposal, the EPA evaluated whether
the adjusted base case would reduce
ozone contributions from upwind states
to the extent that a previously linked
state would have a maximum
contribution less than the 1% threshold.
This assessment shows that in the
adjusted base case, all states are
expected to remain linked (i.e.,
contribute greater than or equal to 1%
of the NAAQS) to at least one
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. Therefore, using
the adjusted base case for this proposal
does not impact the scope of states
linked to downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors relative to the
modeled base case.
The analyses that EPA uses in section
VI to quantify EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets for this proposal also
rely on the adjusted base case.
The EPA seeks comment on its
assessment of the impacts of relying on
the adjusted base case for these
purposes, and on EPA’s intention to rely
on full air quality and IPM modeling of
the adjusted base case to identify
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and to inform the analysis of
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU
NOX Reduction Potential To Reduce
Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2008
NAAQS
A. Introduction
This section describes the EPA’s
proposed quantification of near-term
EGU NOX reductions that are necessary
to fulfill (at least in part) the Clean Air
Act requirement to address interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS.
This section also describes the EPA’s
proposal to translate these reductions
into EGU NOX ozone-season emissions
budgets. Section VII describes the EPA’s
proposal to implement these proposed
emissions budgets via updates to the
existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program.
As described in section V, the EPA
separately identified nonattainment
receptors and maintenance receptors.
The EPA proposes to apply a single
approach for quantifying an upwind
state’s ozone transport obligation to both
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors. It is reasonable to apply the
same approach to quantify upwind-state
reduction requirements with respect to
both nonattainment and maintenance
because the structure of the problems is
the same—emissions from sources in
upwind states contributing to
downwind ozone concentrations that
put the downwind receptor at risk of
nonattainment with respect to the EPA’s
clean air standards. Moreover, as all
nonattainment receptors are also
maintenance receptors because the
maximum design value will always be
equal to or exceed the average design
value, it is reasonable to control all sites
consistent with the level of control
necessary to reduce maintenance
concerns.
As described in section III of this
preamble, due to the impending July
2018 moderate area attainment date, the
EPA is proposing, as a first step, to
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
quantify near-term EGU NOX ozoneseason emission reductions to reduce
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. For this section, this
means that the EPA is proposing to
quantify ozone season EGU NOX
reductions achievable for the 2017
ozone season (i.e., the last full ozone
season prior to the July 2018 attainment
date).
The EPA’s assessment of upwind state
obligations in this proposal reflects
application of a multi-factor test that
considers cost, available emission
reductions, and air quality. This is the
same multi-factor test used in the
original CSAPR. This multi-factor test
considers increasing levels of uniform
control stringency, where each level is
represented by cost, to determine the
appropriate magnitude of pollution
reduction that would reduce the
impacts of interstate transport on
downwind states and to apportion that
reduction responsibility among
collectively-contributing upwind states.
This approach to quantifying upwind
state emission reduction obligations was
reviewed by the Supreme Court in EPA
v. EME Homer City Generation, which
held that using such an approach to
apportion reduction responsibilities
among upwind states that are
collectively responsible for downwind
air quality impacts ‘‘is an efficient and
equitable solution to the allocation
problem the Good Neighbor Provision
requires the Agency to address.’’ 134
S.Ct. at 1607.
There are three steps in developing
and applying the multi-factor test to
quantify upwind state emission
reductions as to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS: (1) Identify NOX mitigation
strategies, focusing on those that can be
in place for the 2017 ozone season; (2)
develop uniform EGU NOX cost
thresholds based on these NOx
mitigation strategies; (3) assess EGU
NOX mitigation potential that is
achievable for 2017 and assess
corresponding air quality improvements
resulting from the application of each
uniform cost threshold, including to
check for over-control. This multi-factor
evaluation informs the EPA’s
determination of appropriate ozone
season EGU NOX reductions necessary
to reduce significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
for the proposed 2017 compliance year.
These steps are discussed in further
detail in the following sections.
This proposal evaluates a range of
uniform EGU NOX costs from $500 per
ton to $10,000 per ton. This range, and
the intermediate uniform NOX cost
thresholds evaluated within that range,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
were selected based on the cost
thresholds at which various EGU NOX
control technologies are widely
available, the use of certain EGU NOX
cost thresholds in previous rules to
address ozone transport, and EGU NOX
cost thresholds incorporated into state
requirements to address ozone
nonattainment.
In this proposal, the EPA evaluated
the emission reduction potential in each
upwind state at each uniform NOX cost
threshold using the adjusted IPM base
case 5.15. In this case, the EPA limited
IPM’s evaluation of NOX mitigation
strategies to those that can be
implemented for the 2017 ozone season,
which is the proposed compliance
timing for this rulemaking, as described
in section VI.B below.
B. NOX Mitigation Strategies
The following sub-sections describe
the EPA’s assessment of EGU and nonEGU point source NOX mitigation
strategies. For more details on these
assessments, refer to the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD and the
Update to Non-EGU Emission
Reductions Cost and Potential for States
with Potentially Significant
Contributions under the 2008 Ozone
Standard TSD in the docket for this
proposed rule.
1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
In developing this proposed rule, the
EPA considered all widely used EGU
NOX control strategies: Fully operating
existing Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR)—including
optimizing NOX removal by existing,
operational SCRs and SNCRs and
turning on and optimizing existing idled
SCRs and SNCRs; installation of (or
upgrading to) state-of-the-art NOX
combustion controls; shifting generation
to units with lower NOX emission rates
within the same state; and installing
new SCRs and SNCRs. Although this
proposal does not require or impose any
specific technology standards to
demonstrate compliance, EPA
determined that certain technologies
would be available by the 2017
timeframe when assessing potential
reductions in the region.
For the reasons explained below, the
EPA determined that the power sector
could implement all of these NOX
mitigation strategies, except installation
of new SCRs or SNCRs, between
finalization of this proposal in summer
of 2016 and the 2017 ozone season. As
to the installation of new SCRs or
SNCRs, the amount of time from
contract award through commissioning
for retrofit with new SCR or SNCR
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75731
exceeds 18 and 12 months, respectively.
For both technologies, conceptual
design, permitting, financing, and bid
review require additional time. It would
therefore not be feasible to retrofit new
SCR or SNCR to achieve EGU NOX
reductions in the 2017 ozone season.
See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD
for discussion of feasibility of EGU NOX
controls for the 2017 ozone season.
Therefore, the EPA analyzed the
remaining strategies for purposes of
quantifying upwind state obligations in
this rule. Exclusion of new SCR and
SNCR installation from this analysis
reflects a determination only that these
strategies are infeasible by 2017, not a
determination that they are infeasible or
inappropriate for consideration of costeffective NOX reduction potential over a
longer timeframe. The EPA requests
comment on what EGU NOX mitigation
strategies are feasible for the 2017 ozone
season.
a. Fully Operating Existing SCRs and
SNCRs
Fully operating existing SCR and
SNCRs can significantly reduce EGU
NOX emissions quickly, using
investments that have already been
made. SCRs can achieve up to 90
percent reduction in EGU NOX (with
sufficient installed catalyst), while
SNCRs can achieve 20–30 percent
reduction in EGU NOX, beyond the
reductions from combustion controls.
These controls are in widespread use
across the U.S. power sector. In the east,
approximately 64 percent of coal-fired
EGU capacity and 75 percent of natural
gas combined cycle (NGCC) EGU
capacity is equipped with SCR or SNCR.
Recent power sector data reveal that
some SCR and SNCR controls are being
underused.90 In some cases, controls are
not fully operating (i.e., the controls
could be operated at a higher NOX
removal rate). In other cases, controls
have been idled for years. Fully
operating existing SCR and SNCR would
be a cost-effective and readily available
approach for EGUs to reduce NOX
emissions and the EPA evaluated this
NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying
EGU NOX obligations for this proposal.
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that are
operating to some extent, but not at their
full pollution control capability, the
EPA’s analysis determined that $500 per
ton represents the costs reflective of
fully operating these systems. Because
the SCR or SNCR is already installed
and is at least to some extent operating,
the EPA assumes that additional reagent
(i.e., ammonia or urea) is the only
90 This assessment is available in the EGU NO
X
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75732
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
significant cost required for full
operation. We observe that urea can cost
on the order of $300 per metric ton. The
cost for anhydrous ammonia is around
$750 per ton.91 In our assessment, we
assume that a 50 percent solution is
used in removing an equivalent amount
of NOX. Thus, we estimate that
sufficient reagent could be purchased at
a cost of $500 per ton of NOX removed
to achieve full operation for most SCRs
and SNCRs. For more details on this
assessment, refer to the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket
for this proposed rule. The proposal
seeks comment on this assessment.
The operational difference between
not fully operating and fully operating
existing SCRs and SNCRs is increasing
reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea) flow rate
and ensuring sufficient reagent exists to
sustain higher flow operations.
Therefore, increasing NOX removal from
these controls can be implemented by
procuring more reagent. Stocking-up
additional reagent for sustaining
increased NOX removal could be done
in a one or two weeks.92
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that
have been idled for years, unit operators
may need to restart payment of some
fixed and variable costs associated with
that control. Fixed and variable costs
include labor, maintenance and repair,
reagent, parasitic load, and ammonia or
urea. As further detailed in the EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD, which is
found in the docket for this proposed
rule, the EPA performed an in-depth
cost assessment for all coal-fired units
with SCRs, finding that 90 percent of
the units had total SCR operation costs
of $1,300 per ton of NOX removed, or
less.
Based on this assessment, the EPA
proposes that turning on and fully
operating idled SCRs is widely available
at a uniform cost of $1,300 per ton of
NOX removed. For more details on this
assessment, refer to the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket
for this proposed rule. The proposal
seeks comment on this assessment.
The EPA performed a similar
assessment for fully operating existing
idled SNCR systems, finding that the
majority of the total fixed and variable
operating cost for SNCR is related to the
cost of the reagent used (e.g., ammonia
91 Schnitkey, G. ‘‘Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices and
2015 Planting Decisions.’’ farmdoc daily (4):195,
Department of Agricultural and Consumer
Economics, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, October 9, 2014.
Permalink URL https://farmdocvdaily.illinois.edu/
2014/10/nitrogen-fertilizer-prices-and-2015planting-decisions.html.
92 This assessment is available in the EGU NO
X
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
or urea) and that the resulting cost per
ton of NOX reduction is sensitive to the
NOX rate of the unit prior to SNCR
operation. Based on the results of this
analysis, and in order to represent a
broad range of unit-level NOX rates
before SNCR operation, the EPA
proposes that turning on and fully
operating idled SNCRs is widely
available at a uniform cost of $3,400 per
ton of NOX removed. For more details
on this assessment, refer to the EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD in the
docket for this proposed rule. The
proposal seeks comment on this
assessment and on higher cost
thresholds that would require some
installation of new SCRs/SNCRs and the
appropriate timetable or phase-in
needed to accommodate those
technologies.
The EPA also evaluated the feasibility
of turning on idled SCR and SNCR for
the 2017 ozone season. Based on past
practice and the possible effort to restart
the controls (e.g., stockpiling reagent,
bringing the system out of protective
lay-up, performing inspections, etc.),
returning these idled controls to
operation should be available in equal
to or less than 3 months.93 The proposal
seeks comment on this assessment.
b. State-of-the-Art NOX Combustion
Controls
State-of-the-art combustion controls
such as low-NOX burners (LNB) and/or
over-fire air (OFA) are cost-effective, can
be installed quickly, and can
significantly reduce EGU NOX
emissions. Ninety-nine percent of coalfired EGU capacity in the East is
equipped with some form of combustion
control. Combustion controls alone can
achieve NOX emission rates of 0.15 to
0.50 lb/mmBtu. Once installed,
combustion controls reduce NOX
emissions at all times of EGU operation.
State-of-the-art combustion controls
would be a cost-effective, timely, and
readily available approach for EGUs to
reduce NOX emissions and the EPA
included this NOX mitigation strategy in
quantifying EGU NOX reductions for
this proposal.
The cost of state-of-the-art combustion
controls per ton of NOX reduced is
dependent on the combustion control
type and unit type. We estimate the cost
per ton of state-of-the-art combustion
controls to be $500 per ton to $1,200 per
ton of NOX removed. To be
conservative, the EPA proposes that
installation of (or upgrading to) state-ofthe-art NOX combustion controls is
93 This
assessment is available in the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
widely available at $1,300 per ton of
NOX removed.
As described in CSAPR the EPA has
observed that upgrade, replacement, or
installation of combustion controls has
been demonstrated to be achievable
within the timeframe provided for by
this rulemaking and its compliance
dates.94 The EPA revisited this analysis
with data specific to this proposal and
proposes that a 2017 compliance
timeframe is feasible for this EGU NOX
mitigation strategy. These controls are
fully proven, widely used, and with a
reasonable effort can be procured,
designed, installed, tested and be in
operation on any coal-steam EGU
consistent with the compliance
timeframe provided for this rulemaking.
The EPA proposes that this will be
feasible for the 2017 ozone season. The
proposal seeks comment on additional
EGU NOx mitigation strategies that may
be feasible for the 2017 ozone season.
For more details on this assessment,
refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation
Strategies TSD in the docket for this
proposed rule. The proposal seeks
comment on this assessment.
c. Shifting Generation to Lower NOXEmitting EGUs
Shifting generation to lower NOXemitting EGUs, similar to operating
existing post-combustion controls, uses
investments that have already been
made, can be done quickly, and can
significantly reduce EGU NOX
emissions.
Since CSAPR was promulgated,
electricity generation has trended
toward lower NOX-emitting generation
due to market conditions (e.g., low
natural gas prices) and state and federal
environmental policies. For example,
new NGCC facilities, which represented
45% of new 2014 capacity, can achieve
NOX emission rates of 0.0095 lb/mmBtu,
compared to existing coal steam
facilities, which emitted at an average
rate across the 23 states included in this
proposal of 0.18 lbs/mmBtu of NOX in
2014. This substantial difference in NOX
emission performance between existing
coal steam and new NGCC generation is
due both to higher nitrogen content in
coal compared to natural gas, as well as
to the substantially lower generating
efficiency of steam combustion
technology compared to combined cycle
combustion technology. Shifting
generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs
would be a cost-effective, timely, and
readily available approach for EGUs to
reduce NOX emissions and the EPA
94 ‘‘Installation Timing for Low NO Burners
X
(LNB)’’, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491–
0051.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
included this NOX mitigation strategy in
quantifying EGU NOX obligations for
this proposal.
Shifting generation to lower NOXemitting EGUs occurs on a continuum
in response to economic factors such as
fuel costs and uniform NOX cost
thresholds, including those evaluated
for this proposal (i.e., relatively lower
uniform NOX cost thresholds
incentivize relatively fewer EGU NOX
reductions resulting from shifting
generation, while relatively higher
uniform NOX cost thresholds encourage
more EGU NOX reductions driven by
shifting generation). As a result, the EPA
quantified reduction potential from this
EGU NOX mitigation strategy at each
cost level identified that represents the
availability of other pollution control
measures evaluated in our assessment of
uniform NOX cost thresholds described
in section VI.C.
In this analysis, the EPA assumed
shifting generation to units with lower
NOX emission rates could occur within
the same state by the near-term 2017
implementation timing for this
proposed rule when assessing state
emission reduction potential for
emissions budget purposes. This
conservative approach does not capture
emission reductions that would occur if
generation was shifted more broadly
among units in different states, which
the EPA believes is feasible over time
but which may be subject to out-of-merit
order dispatch constraints in the near
term. Limiting such generation shifting
potential to units within each state is
not a reflection of how generation
shifting works in practice (given that the
grid crosses state boundaries); instead, it
is an analytic proxy designed to respect
the feasibility of near-term generation
shifting in light of these potential nearterm out-of-merit order dispatch
constraints. The EPA seeks comment on
this assessment and on this limitation in
quantifying EGU NOX reduction
potential for the 2017 ozone season.
2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
The EPA is not proposing to address
non-EGU emission reductions in its
efforts to reduce interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at
this time. Compared to EGUs, there are
relatively more non-EGU point sources
and these sources on average are smaller
than EGUs. The implication of these
fleet characteristics is that there are
more individual sources to control and
there are relatively fewer emission
reductions available from each source.
Given the proposed 2017
implementation timing for this
rulemaking, we are uncertain that
significant aggregate NOX mitigation is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
achievable from non-EGU point sources
for 2017. Moreover, there is greater
uncertainty in the EPA’s assessment of
non-EGU point-source NOX mitigation
potential (see below). The EPA requests
comment on these issues, including
how non-EGU reductions should be
addressed and considered in fulfilling
upwind states’ good neighbor
obligations under the 2008 ozone
standard in the future, as the control of
non-EGUs may be a necessary part of
addressing states’ full transport
obligation. States can always choose to
reduce non-EGU emissions via good
neighbor SIPs.
The EPA has evaluated the potential
for ozone season NOX reductions from
non-EGU sources. A detailed discussion
of this assessment is provided in the
Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Potential
TSD, located in the docket for this
proposed rule. This TSD discusses nonEGU source category emissions, EPA
tools for estimating emission reductions
from non-EGU categories, and efforts, to
date, to review and refine our estimates
for certain states. In addition, the TSD
contains brief discussions of available
controls, costs, and potential emission
reductions for a few specific source
categories. The EPA views this non-EGU
assessment as an initial step in future
efforts to evaluate non-EGU categories
that may be necessary to fully quantify
upwind states’ significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance. The EPA seeks comment
on its assessment that non-EGU controls
are not feasible by the 2017 ozoneseason. It also seeks comment on its
broader non-EGU NOX mitigation
assessment and the availability of nonEGU NOX emission reductions to
mitigate interstate ozone transport in
years following 2017.
Although EPA did not find non-EGU
reductions feasible by 2017 in this
proposal, it is taking comment on that
assessment. Future EPA rulemakings or
guidance could revisit the potential for
reductions from non-EGU sources.
Under such a scenario, EPA could use
a similar approach of identifying
appropriate cost thresholds for nonEGUs and EGUs alike, and then identify
potential emission reductions and
corresponding emission budgets. Under
this scenario, an emission budget could
be established for all covered sources
(e.g., EGUs and non-EGUs alike) with
fungible allowances. EPA is taking
comment on the potential to combine
EGUs and non-EGUs into a single
trading program to resolve the
remaining non-attainment and
maintenance issues at a later date.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75733
C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for
Assessment
As discussed above, the multi-factor
test used here considers increasing
levels of uniform control stringency,
where each level is represented by cost,
in combination with consideration of
NOX reduction potential and
corresponding air quality
improvements. To determine which cost
thresholds to use to assess upwind state
NOX mitigation potential, the EPA
evaluated EGU NOX control costs that
represent the thresholds at which
various control technologies are widely
available (described previously in
section VI.B), the use of certain cost
thresholds in previous rules to address
ozone transport, and cost thresholds
incorporated into state requirements to
address ozone nonattainment.
The EPA began by determining the
appropriate range of costs to evaluate.
The lower end of the range is informed
by a confluence of considerations. In
CSAPR, $500 per ton was the EGU NOX
cost threshold relied upon to partially
address ozone transport for the less
stringent 1997 standard. It is also the
lowest marginal cost where EPA expects
NOX reduction to be cost effective,
based on our assessment of EGU NOX
mitigation strategies (see section B).
Specifically, the cost of this approach to
NOX reduction is the marginal cost of
running currently operating SCR and
SNCR systems at higher levels of NOX
removal than they are currently
achieving. The EPA has not identified a
discrete NOX pollution control measure
that would achieve sufficient emission
reductions to address relevant air
quality impacts at an estimated cost of
less than $500 per ton; as a result, the
EPA has not included a representation
of such a cost level in this proposal’s
analyses.95
The EPA then evaluated EGU NOX
cost thresholds to determine an
appropriate upper bound for our
assessment. The EPA identified $10,000
per ton as an upper bound, exceeding
the costs of operating existing or
installing new EGU NOX controls.
The EPA seeks comment on whether
$500 per ton is an appropriate minimum
and $10,000 per ton is an appropriate
maximum uniform cost threshold to
evaluate for the purpose of quantifying
EGU NOX reductions to reduce
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
95 Additionally, the EPA notes that, as discussed
in more detail below, no identified air quality
problems were resolved at the $500 per ton cost
threshold. Accordingly, it would not be practical for
the EPA to evaluate emission reductions achieved
at cost thresholds below $500 per ton.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75734
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The EPA then determined appropriate
EGU NOX cost thresholds to evaluate
within the range of $500 per ton to
$10,000 per ton. As described above,
these cost thresholds are informed by
our assessment of the costs at which
EGU NOX control strategies are widely
available. While the EPA could evaluate
additional cost thresholds in between
reveal significant incremental emission
reduction potential that isn’t already
anticipated at the analyzed cost
thresholds. Table VI.C–1 lists the EGU
NOX cost thresholds evaluated and the
NOX reduction strategy or policy used to
identify each cost threshold.
those selected, this would not yield
meaningful insights as to NOX reduction
potential. The EPA has identified cost
thresholds where control technologies
are widely available and thereby where
the most significant incremental
emission reduction potential is
expected. Analyzing costs between
these cost thresholds is not expected to
TABLE VI.C–1
EGU NOX cost
threshold
$500/ton .....................
$1,300/ton ..................
$3,400/ton ..................
$5,000/ton ..................
$6,400/ton ..................
$10,000/ton ................
CSAPR ozone season NOX cost threshold; fully operating post-combustion controls that are already running.
Widespread availability of restarting idled SCRs and state of the art combustion controls.
NOX SIP Call ozone season NOX cost threshold, adjusted to 2014$; Widespread availability of restarting idled SNCRs.
Widespread availability of new SCRs.96
Widespread availability of new SNCRs.97
Upper bound.
The EPA proposes that this range and
selection of interim uniform cost
thresholds are appropriate to evaluate
potential EGU NOX reduction
obligations to address interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Because these cost thresholds are linked
to costs at which EGU NOX mitigation
strategies become widely available in
each state, the cost thresholds represent
the break points at which the most
significant step-changes in EGU NOX
mitigation are expected. The EPA seeks
comment on the appropriateness of
evaluating these uniform cost thresholds
for the purpose of quantifying EGU NOX
reductions to reduce interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
48 contiguous United States and the
District of Columbia, starting in 2017.
The analysis covered EGUs with a
capacity (electrical output) greater than
25 MW to make the analysis similar to
previous analyses done for interstate
transport purposes. The EGU Emission
Reduction Cost Analysis TSD, which is
in the docket for this proposed rule,
provides further details of EPA’s
analysis of ozone season NOX emission
reductions occurring at the
representative EGU NOX cost thresholds
analyzed for the 2017 ozone season.
Table VI.D—1 shows the 2017
baseline EGU emissions and ozone
season NOX reduction potential in each
state corresponding to the uniform cost
levels.
D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX
Reductions, and Air Quality
The EPA analyzed ozone season NOX
emission reductions available from the
power sector in each state using IPM.98
The agency analyzed levels of uniform
control stringency, where each level is
represented by uniform EGU NOX cost
thresholds listed in Table VI.C–1 above
and repeated here: $500 per ton; $1,300
per ton; $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton;
$6,400 per ton; and $10,000 per ton. The
EPA limited IPM’s NOX mitigation
strategies to those that could be
implemented for 2017, as described in
section VI.B.
The analysis applied these uniform
EGU NOX cost thresholds to EGUs in the
TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)
2017 emissions
(short tons)
State
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Base case
Alabama ...................................................................................
Arkansas ..................................................................................
Illinois .......................................................................................
Indiana .....................................................................................
Iowa .........................................................................................
Kansas .....................................................................................
Kentucky ..................................................................................
Louisiana ..................................................................................
Maryland ..................................................................................
Michigan ...................................................................................
Mississippi ................................................................................
Missouri ....................................................................................
New Jersey ..............................................................................
New York .................................................................................
North Carolina ..........................................................................
96 The cost assessment for new SCR is available
in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While
chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SCRs were
not considered a feasible control on the compliance
timeframe being proposed for this rule.
97 The cost assessment for new SNCR is available
in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative
marginal costs per ton (in 2011$)
$500/ton
13,289
6,224
10,021
41,748
7,911
11,332
27,141
10,897
6,470
20,049
7,871
17,050
3,302
4,948
14,435
1,729
13
395
6,611
186
428
3,608
64
1,028
403
82
934
370
115
1,922
chosen to define a cost-threshold, new SNCRs were
not considered a feasible control on the compliance
timeframe being proposed for this rule.
98 IPM version 5.14 is discussed in preamble
section IV.B, and as noted in preamble section V,
for purposes of this quantification analysis EPA
used an adjusted base case reflecting IPM version
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$1,300/ton
3,582
104
472
12,173
423
438
11,896
117
1,026
3,033
297
996
372
284
1,922
$3,400/ton
3,670
859
546
12,989
717
465
12,382
400
1,164
3,528
893
1,152
378
359
3,526
5.15, including the Clean Power Plan. IPM
documentation is in the docket and available at
www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
75735
TABLE VI.D–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)—Continued
2017 emissions
(short tons)
State
Base case
Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative
marginal costs per ton (in 2011$)
$500/ton
$1,300/ton
$3,400/ton
Ohio .........................................................................................
Oklahoma .................................................................................
Pennsylvania ............................................................................
Tennessee ...............................................................................
Texas .......................................................................................
Virginia .....................................................................................
West Virginia ............................................................................
Wisconsin .................................................................................
27,795
19,593
41,533
5,554
58,199
7,196
25,384
5,257
5,746
703
2,210
74
685
423
592
5
9,646
2,170
26,759
113
3,610
539
10,908
36
9,666
3,169
26,791
146
5,810
1,587
12,014
107
Total ..................................................................................
393,198
28,325
90,916
102,318
TABLE VI.D–1 (CONTINUED)—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS (TONS)
Reduction potential (short tons) at various representative
marginal costs per ton (in 2011$)
State
$5,000/ton
$6,400/ton
$10,000/ton
4,780
1,147
622
13,770
717
677
12,473
461
1,176
3,756
1,165
1,298
381
370
3,626
9,773
3,821
26,913
224
6,940
3,104
12,211
131
5,418
1,242
640
13,437
717
838
13,456
467
1,369
3,889
1,479
1,930
384
661
4,415
10,078
5,702
26,932
241
7,772
3,560
12,243
276
5,840
1,935
761
17,109
1,317
1,150
14,503
706
1,369
4,411
2,208
2,775
465
906
4,643
10,231
6,609
27,091
285
8,380
3,610
12,243
618
Total ....................................................................................................................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Alabama .....................................................................................................................
Arkansas ....................................................................................................................
Illinois .........................................................................................................................
Indiana .......................................................................................................................
Iowa ...........................................................................................................................
Kansas .......................................................................................................................
Kentucky ....................................................................................................................
Louisiana ....................................................................................................................
Maryland ....................................................................................................................
Michigan .....................................................................................................................
Mississippi ..................................................................................................................
Missouri ......................................................................................................................
New Jersey ................................................................................................................
New York ...................................................................................................................
North Carolina ............................................................................................................
Ohio ...........................................................................................................................
Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ..............................................................................................................
Tennessee .................................................................................................................
Texas .........................................................................................................................
Virginia .......................................................................................................................
West Virginia ..............................................................................................................
Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................
109,535
117,145
129,166
Next, the EPA performed a combined
multi-factor assessment of costs (i.e., the
uniform cost thresholds evaluated), EGU
NOX reductions (i.e., the reductions in
Table VI.D–1), and corresponding
improvements in downwind ozone
concentrations. For this assessment, the
EPA used simplifying assumptions
regarding the relationship between EGU
NOX emissions and corresponding
ozone concentrations at nonattainment
and maintenance receptors of concern.
For more information about how this
assessment was performed, refer to the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Technical Support Document.
For each nonattainment or
maintenance receptor identified for this
proposal, the EPA evaluated the air
quality improvement at that receptor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
that is expected from progressively more
stringent upwind EGU NOX reductions
in states that are linked to that receptor.
For example, the EPA evaluated the
Harford County Maryland receptor with
all linked states controlling their
emissions at $500 per ton. This
assessment showed a 0.35 ppb
reduction in expected ozone design
values at $500 per ton. The residual
design values at this site are still
expected to exceed the 2008 ozone
NAAQS with an average design value of
81.2 ppb and a maximum design value
of 83.9 ppb. Next, the EPA evaluated
this receptor with all linked states
controlling their emissions at $1,300 per
ton. This assessment showed a 0.94 ppb
reduction in expected ozone design
values. At a cost threshold of $1,300 per
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ton, the residual design values at this
site are expected to continue to exceed
the 2008 ozone NAAQS with an average
design value of 80.6 ppb and a
maximum design value of 83.3 ppb.
With respect to this receptor, the EPA
then evaluated each progressively more
stringent uniform control stringency (i.e.
$3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; $6,400
per ton; and $10,000 per ton). Generally,
the EPA evaluated the air quality
improvements at each monitoring site
for each progressively more stringent
uniform EGU NOX control level. This
information is available in the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis TSD.
This approach evaluates interstate
ozone transport for each receptor
independently. Also, by evaluating the
downwind ozone impact of upwind
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75736
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reduction metrics) in a multi-factor test
that allows the EPA to evaluate the costeffectiveness of various levels of
emission reductions and the resulting
improvements in downwind ozone
concentrations.
This evaluation shows that
meaningful EGU NOX reductions are
available at reasonable cost and that
these reductions can provide
meaningful improvements in downwind
ozone concentrations at the identified
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors for this proposal. For example,
the combined downwind ozone
improvement across nonattainment and
maintenance receptors is approximately
19 ppb at the $1,300 per ton level. See
Figure VI.1.
Combining costs, EGU NOX
reductions, and corresponding
improvements in downwind ozone
concentrations results in a ‘‘knee in the
curve’’ at $1,300 per ton. This uniform
cost of reduction represents the
threshold at which EGU NOX reduction
potential and corresponding downwind
ozone air quality improvements are
maximized with respect to marginal
cost. That is, the ratio of emission
reductions to marginal cost and the ratio
of ozone improvements to marginal cost
are maximized relative to the other
uniform cost thresholds evaluated.
Further, at higher cost thresholds, as a
result of this analysis we do not
anticipate significant additional
reductions that would justify these
higher costs.
As part of this analysis, the EPA
evaluates potential over-control with
respect to whether (1) the expected
ozone improvements would be
sufficient or greater than necessary to
resolve the downwind ozone pollution
problem (i.e., resolving nonattainment
or maintenance problems) or (2) the
expected ozone improvements would
reduce upwind state ozone
contributions to below the screening
threshold (i.e., 1% of the NAAQS).
In EME Homer City, the Supreme
Court held that EPA cannot ‘‘require[ ]
an upwind State to reduce emissions by
more than the amount necessary to
achieve attainment in every downwind
State to which it is linked.’’ 134 S.Ct. at
1608. On remand from the Supreme
Court, the D.C. Circuit held that this
means that EPA might overstep its
authority ‘‘when those downwind
locations would achieve attainment
even if less stringent emissions limits
were imposed on the upwind States
linked to those locations.’’ EME Homer
City II, 795 F.3d at 127. The D.C. Circuit
qualified this statement by noting that
this ‘‘does not mean that every such
upwind State would then be entitled to
less stringent emission limits. Some of
those upwind States may still be subject
to the more stringent emissions limits so
as not to cause other downwind
locations to which those States are
linked to fall into nonattainment.’’ Id. at
14–15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
EP03DE15.000</GPH>
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reductions that are made in all linked
states at the same uniform control
stringency, this approach provides
equitable treatment of all upwind states
as to their contribution to each
downwind receptor to which they are
linked.
The EPA aggregates the relevant data
(i.e., cost of control, EGU NOX reduction
potential, and downwind ozone
75737
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Consistent with these instructions
from the Supreme Court and the D.C.
Circuit, the EPA evaluated whether
reductions quantified under the
evaluated cost thresholds can be
anticipated to resolve any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance problems
(as defined in section V) and by how
much.
The EPA’s assessment shows that the
uniform control stringency represented
by $500 per ton would resolve the
maintenance problem at two downwind
maintenance receptors—Ocean County,
New Jersey (maximum design value of
75.9 ppb) and Oldham County,
Kentucky (maximum design value of
75.8 ppb). Because no state is linked
solely to one of these maintenance
receptors, resolving these downwind air
quality impact does not fully address
any individual upwind state’s good
neighbor obligation.
This assessment shows that the
uniform control stringency represented
by $1,300 per ton would resolve
maintenance problems at three
additional downwind maintenance
receptors—Baltimore County, Maryland
(maximum design value of 75.6 ppb),
Hamilton County, Ohio (maximum
design value of 75.1 ppb), and
Gloucester County, New Jersey
(maximum design value of 75.8 ppb).
The EPA’s assessment shows that this
control level does resolve the only
identified nonattainment or
maintenance problem to which North
Carolina is linked for this proposal—the
Baltimore County, Maryland
maintenance receptor. The EPA
therefore proposes that this EGU control
level would fully address North
Carolina’s good neighbor obligation
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA seeks comment on this
determination.
The EPA also proposes that, based on
the information supporting this
proposal, this level of EGU NOX control
for North Carolina would not constitute
over-control as to the Baltimore County
receptor. The level of the 2008 ozone
standard NAAQS is 75 ppb. At the
uniform $1,300 per ton cost threshold,
EPA’s assessment demonstrates that the
receptor would just be maintaining the
standard, with a maximum design value
of 75.6 ppb. Therefore, the emissions
reductions that would be achieved at
the $1,300 per ton cost threshold would
not result in air quality improvements at
the Baltimore County receptor
significantly better than the standard
such the emission reductions might
constitute over-control as to that
receptor. On the contrary, the emission
reductions achieved in upwind states at
the $1,300 per ton cost threshold are
necessary to bring the maximum design
value at the Baltimore County receptor
into alignment with the standard. The
EPA also seeks comment on this
determination.
For the remainder of the states for
which the EPA is proposing FIPs in this
action, none of these states are linked
solely to one of these maintenance
receptors with air quality resolved at the
$1,300 per ton cost threshold. Therefore,
resolving these downwind air quality
impacts does not fully address any other
individual upwind state’s good neighbor
obligation.
As noted above the EPA is proposing
that the $1,300 per ton EGU control
level would fully address North
Carolina’s good neighbor obligation
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
As such, based on the data supporting
this proposal, North Carolina was
excluded from assessment of air quality
improvements at more stringent uniform
EGU NOX control levels.
The EPA’s assessment shows that the
uniform control stringency represented
by $3,400 per ton would resolve the
maintenance problem at two additional
downwind maintenance receptors—
Denton County, Texas (481211032)
(maximum design value of 75.9 ppb)
and Harris County, Texas (482011050)
(maximum design value of 75.9 ppb).
Because no state is linked solely to one
of these maintenance receptors,
resolving these downwind air quality
impacts does not fully address any
individual upwind state’s good neighbor
obligation.
The EPA provides this summary of
the evaluation for the $500 per ton;
$1,300 per ton; and $3,400 per ton
uniform cost thresholds because, as
described below, the EPA is proposing
to use the $1,300 per ton level and is
taking comment on using the $500 per
ton level or $3,400 per ton level to
quantify ozone season EGU NOX
requirements to reduce interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Further information on the EPA’s
evaluation of these cost thresholds as
well as additional cost thresholds
($5,000 per ton; $6,400 per ton; and
$10,000 per ton) are provided in the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Technical Support Document.
Additionally, Table VI.D–2 provides a
summary of the expected number of
nonattainment and maintenance-only
receptors at the adjusted base case and
cost thresholds.
TABLE VI.D–2—NUMBER OF NONATTAINMENT OR MAINTENANCE RECEPTORS AFTER EGU NOX MITIGATION
Nonattainment
receptors
Cost threshold
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Base Case (IPM 5.15 w/CPP) .................................................................................................................................
$500 per ton ............................................................................................................................................................
$1,300 per ton .........................................................................................................................................................
$3,400 per ton .........................................................................................................................................................
$5,000 per ton .........................................................................................................................................................
$6,400 per ton .........................................................................................................................................................
$10,000 per ton .......................................................................................................................................................
In EME Homer City, the Supreme
Court also held that ‘‘EPA cannot
require a State to reduce its output of
pollution . . . at odds with the onepercent threshold the Agency has set.’’
134 S.Ct. at 1608. The Court explained
that ‘‘EPA cannot demand reductions
that would drive an upwind State’s
contribution to every downwind State to
which it is linked below one percent of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
the relevant NAAQS.’’ Id. Accordingly,
the EPA also evaluated the potential for
over-control with respect to the 1%
threshold proposed to be applied in this
rulemaking at each relevant cost
threshold. Specifically, the EPA
evaluated whether the uniform cost
thresholds would reduce upwind EGU
emissions to a level where the
contribution from each upwind state
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maintenanceonly receptors
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
21
19
14
13
13
13
12
would be below the 1% threshold that
linked the upwind state to the
downwind receptors. If the EPA found
that any state’s reduction obligation at
the applied cost threshold decreased its
contribution to every downwind
receptor to which it is linked below the
1% threshold, we would need to adjust
the state’s reduction obligation
accordingly. The EPA’s assessment
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75738
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reveals that there is not over-control
with respect to the 1% threshold at any
of the evaluated uniform costs in any
upwind state; in fact, even at the highest
uniform cost threshold evaluated (e.g.,
$10,000 per ton), all upwind states that
contributed greater than or equal to the
1% threshold in the base case continued
to contribute greater than or equal to 1%
of the NAAQS to at least one downwind
nonattainment or maintenance
receptor.99 Therefore, the EPA does not
expect any of the uniform cost
thresholds evaluated to result in overcontrol relative to the 1% threshold. For
more information about this assessment,
refer to the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Technical Support Document.
The EPA proposes to determine ozone
season EGU NOX control requirements
for upwind states to reduce interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS based on the reduction
potential quantified from pollution
control measures that are cost-effective
at the $1,300 per ton level. The EPA
seeks comment on potentially basing
these ozone season NOX control
requirements on uniform cost levels that
are less stringent ($500 per ton) or more
stringent ($3,400 per ton), including
comments on the proposed approach to
addressing a state like North Carolina in
such a situation, which is explained
below.
The EPA notes that the evaluation of
cost, NOX reductions, and ozone
improvements for the final rule could
show different results for different
states. For example, one or more states
could fully address their good neighbor
obligation based on ozone season NOX
control requirements represented by one
cost level while one or more other states
would not fully address their good
neighbor obligation at that level and
would have ozone season NOX control
requirements based on a more stringent
cost level in order to fully address or
make further progress toward partially
addressing their good neighbor
obligation. In this situation, the EPA
proposes that it would quantify
requirements for these different groups
of states based on different uniform
control stringencies. This could be
similar to EPA’s establishing two
different SO2 groups under the original
CSAPR as to addressing PM2.5 transport.
The EPA seeks comment on this
99 As discussed above, North Carolina would not
be regulated at any level higher than $1300/ton and
at that level, there’s no over-control as to the 1%
threshold. In fact, while the receptor to which
North Carolina is linked resolves its maintenance
problem at the $1,300/ton level, North Carolina
would continue to contribute equal to or greater
than 1% to that air quality monitor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
proposed approach for quantifying
requirements.
The EPA also seeks comment on
implementation of the resulting
emissions budgets. The EPA proposes
that if there are groups of states with
ozone season NOX control requirements
based on different cost levels, we would
nevertheless finalize FIPs for the states
in these groups of states that incorporate
participation in a trading program that
allows them to trade allowances with
each other subject to limitations
described in section VII of this proposal.
By way of example and as noted
above, the EPA is also seeking comment
on potentially basing ozone season NOX
control requirements on the $3,400 per
ton uniform cost levels. If the EPA were
to finalize ozone season NOX control
requirements based on this level, given
the specific data informing this
proposal, then the EPA would set North
Carolina’s requirements based on the
less stringent $1,300 per ton level
because, as discussed above, the sole
receptor to which North Carolina is
linked for this proposal is resolved at
the $1,300 per ton level with a
maximum design value of 75.6 ppb.
Therefore, because the $1,300 per ton
level fully addresses North Carolina’s
good neighbor obligation, if EPA were to
determine ozone season NOX control
requirements based on the $3,400 per
ton level for the remainder of states, the
EPA would finalize good neighbor
requirements for these two groups of
states using different uniform control
stringencies. The EPA proposes that it
would finalize FIPs for the states that
incorporate participation in a trading
program that allows them to trade
allowances with each other subject to
limitations described in section VII of
this proposal.
The EPA’s selection of reductions for
this proposed rule is specific to, and
appropriate for, defining near-term
achievable upwind obligations with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
states where a FIP is necessary. We do
not intend—nor do we believe we
would be justified in doing so in any
event—that the cost-level-based
determinations in this proposed rule
impose a constraint for selection of cost
levels in addressing transported
pollution with respect to future NAAQS
and/or any revisions to these FIPs for
any other future transport rules that the
EPA may develop to address any
potential remaining obligation as to the
current NAAQS, for which different cost
levels may be appropriate.
As described above, the EPA is
proposing that the NOX emission
reductions associated with uniform
control stringency represented by
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$1,300 per ton would not result in overcontrol at any of the identified nonattainment or maintenance receptors
and it is reasonable to require such
reductions from upwind states.
The EPA requests comment on its
proposal to quantify ozone season EGU
NOX reductions to reduce interstate
transport with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS using the $1,300 per ton
uniform cost threshold.
Note that our assessment of EGU NOX
reduction potential shows zero
reductions available in Delaware in
2017 at any evaluated cost threshold. At
this time, because the assessment shows
no EGU NOX reduction potential within
Delaware up to $10,000 per ton and
because Delaware does not currently
participate in the original CSAPR NOX
ozone-season allowance trading
program, the EPA is not proposing to
promulgate a FIP for Delaware to be
included in this rule. However, as this
assessment has only considered
reductions available at EGUs by 2017,
the EPA cannot at this time conclude
that Delaware does not have reductions
available on a longer timeframe or from
other emission sectors. Accordingly, the
EPA cannot conclude at this time that
Delaware does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance at downwind
receptors to which it is linked. The EPA
will evaluate additional reduction
potential from Delaware in a future
rulemaking to address the 2008 ozone
standard. The EPA seeks comment on
not including Delaware in the proposed
FIPs.
The EPA’s EGU NOX reduction
assessment also shows nearly zero
reductions available in Wisconsin in
2017 at the proposed $1,300 per ton cost
threshold. However, Wisconsin
currently participates in the original
CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions
trading program and Wisconsin’s
original CSAPR NOX ozone emissions
budget is greater than its projected base
case emissions. The EPA proposes to
update Wisconsin’s emissions budgets
because not doing so would mean that
Wisconsin, which is found to contribute
above 1% to downwind ozone
problems, could increase emissions
above its base case level. The EPA
proposes to determine ozone season
NOX control requirements for Wisconsin
to reduce interstate ozone transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the
reduction potential quantified from
pollution control measures that are costeffective at the $1,300 per ton level. For
Wisconsin, based on modeling for this
proposal, this level is similar to its
projected base-case level. The EPA seeks
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
comment on the proposed FIP for
Wisconsin.
The EPA also requests comment as to
whether the EPA should treat Delaware
and Wisconsin in the same manner with
respect to their inclusion or exclusion
from the ozone-season trading program
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
For example, the EPA requests comment
as to whether both Delaware and
Wisconsin should be included in the
ozone-season trading program with
budgets on the reduction potential
quantified from pollution control
measures that are cost-effective at
$1,300 per ton,. EPA also requests
comment as to whether both states
should instead be excluded from the
ozone-season trading program.
E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets
The proposed emissions budgets
reflect remaining EGU emissions after
upwind states achieve the emission
reduction obligations defined in section
VI of this proposal.
In the original CSAPR proposal, the
EPA set proposed emissions budgets by
using an approach that considered
monitored state-level heat input and
modeled state-level emissions rates.
However, for the CSAPR final rule, the
EPA set budgets using only the
modeling results from CSAPR’s uniform
cost assessment. For this rule, the EPA
proposes to set emissions budgets by
considering monitored heat input and
modeled emissions rates, similar to the
original CSAPR proposal. The EPA
seeks comment on all aspects of
quantifying state emissions budgets
reflecting upwind obligations, including
alternative metrics to heat input, such as
generation.
The EPA proposes to quantify state
emissions budgets using the minimum
of calculated EGU emissions budgets
using the state-level EGU NOX emission
rates that correspond to the upwind
state reductions identified above using a
uniform cost threshold of $1,300 per ton
or 2014 monitored historic emissions.
The proposed approach for translating
this EGU NOX reduction potential into
emissions budgets is a four step process.
First, the EPA would use the resulting
2018 state-level modeled EGU NOX
emissions rate (lbs/mmBtu) from the
IPM $1,300 per ton uniform cost
assessment. The state-level rate is
calculated as the total emissions from
affected sources within the state,
75739
divided by the total heat input from
these sources. Second, the EPA
proposes to multiply this modeled statelevel emissions rate by 2014 monitored
historic state-level heat input.
Multiplying the projected state-level
emissions rate by historical heat input
yields state-specific ozone season EGU
NOX emissions for 2018. Third, the EPA
proposes to add an adjustment to
account for differences in unit
availability between the IPM 2018 run
year and 2017, yielding state-specific
ozone season EGU NOX emissions for
2017. Finally, the EPA then proposes
EGU emissions budgets as the minimum
of this calculated 2017 emission level or
2014 historic monitored emissions.
This proposed approach reflects the
EGU NOX reduction potential described
above and grounds the EPA’s
quantification of emissions budgets in
historical data. The proposed EGU NOx
ozone-season emissions budgets
calculated using this approach can be
found in Table VI.E–1. Tables VI.E–2
and VI.E–3 provide the EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets
reflecting EGU NOX mitigation available
for 2017 at $500 per ton and $3,400 per
ton, respectively.
TABLE VI.E–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION
AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2018
$1,300/ton
emission rate
(lbs/MMBtu)
2014
emissions
(tons)
State
2014 Heat Input
(MMBtu)
2017
adjustment
(tons) 100
2017 EGU NOX
Ozone-season
emissions budget
(tons)
Alabama ...........................................................
Arkansas ..........................................................
Illinois ...............................................................
Indiana .............................................................
Iowa ..................................................................
Kansas .............................................................
Kentucky ..........................................................
Louisiana ..........................................................
Maryland ..........................................................
Michigan ...........................................................
Mississippi ........................................................
Missouri ............................................................
New Jersey ......................................................
New York .........................................................
North Carolina ..................................................
Ohio ..................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................................
Tennessee .......................................................
Texas ...............................................................
Virginia .............................................................
West Virginia ....................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................
21,075
18,135
17,520
40,247
13,857
12,297
33,896
18,278
4,026
25,065
10,229
31,235
2,746
5,547
16,759
32,181
16,215
44,551
8,057
58,492
9,695
29,420
9,087
0.049
0.074
0.062
0.126
0.11
0.12
0.102
0.097
0.05
0.112
0.069
0.086
0.036
0.038
0.078
0.073
0.144
0.057
0.056
0.079
0.076
0.084
0.054
410,477,094
185,511,093
388,382,456
447,417,615
151,989,571
154,921,650
380,694,315
326,662,000
86,239,563
307,723,171
172,406,970
330,006,788
112,887,439
235,619,397
315,255,877
457,251,027
236,715,186
508,608,673
196,132,311
1,474,773,212
179,324,728
317,087,558
205,305,933
0
51
9
0
0
0
2,169
17
2,669
1,836
0
1,210
0
0
0
0
154
0
0
33
0
0
0
9,979
6,949
12,078
28,284
8,351
9,272
21,519
15,807
4,026
19,115
5,910
15,323
2,015
4,450
12,275
16,660
16,215
14,387
5,481
58,002
6,818
13,390
5,561
23 State Region ........................................
478,610
............................
7,581,393,627
............................
311,867
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75740
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.E–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION
AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $500 PER TON
2014 emissions
(tons)
State
2018 $500/ton
emission rate
(lbs/MMBtu)
2014 heat input
(MMBtu)
2017 adjustment
(tons) 101
2017 EGU NOX
ozone-season
emissions budget
(tons)
Alabama ...........................................................
Arkansas ..........................................................
Illinois ...............................................................
Indiana .............................................................
Iowa ..................................................................
Kansas .............................................................
Kentucky ..........................................................
Louisiana ..........................................................
Maryland ..........................................................
Michigan ...........................................................
Mississippi ........................................................
Missouri ............................................................
New Jersey ......................................................
New York .........................................................
North Carolina ..................................................
Ohio ..................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................................
Tennessee .......................................................
Texas ...............................................................
Virginia .............................................................
West Virginia ....................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................
21,075
18,135
17,520
40,247
13,857
12,297
33,896
18,278
4,026
25,065
10,229
31,235
2,746
5,547
16,759
32,181
16,215
44,551
8,057
58,492
9,695
29,420
9,087
0.058
0.075
0.062
0.15
0.113
0.12
0.149
0.097
0.05
0.131
0.071
0.086
0.036
0.039
0.078
0.088
0.156
0.15
0.056
0.083
0.078
0.145
0.054
410,477,094
185,511,093
388,382,456
447,417,615
151,989,571
154,921,650
380,694,315
326,662,000
86,239,563
307,723,171
172,406,970
330,006,788
112,887,439
235,619,397
315,255,877
457,251,027
236,715,186
508,608,673
196,132,311
1,474,773,212
179,324,728
317,087,558
205,305,933
0
51
23
0
0
0
4,463
17
2,672
1,836
0
1,123
0
0
0
0
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,886
7,038
12,144
33,483
8,614
9,278
32,783
15,861
4,026
22,022
6,083
15,380
2,016
4,607
12,278
20,194
16,215
38,270
5,520
58,492
6,955
22,932
5,588
23 State Region ........................................
478,610
............................
7,581,393,627
............................
371,665
TABLE VI.E–3—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS, REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION
AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $3,400 PER TON
2014 emissions
(tons)
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
State
2018 $3,400/ton
emission rate
(lbs/MMBtu)
2014 heat input
(MMBtu)
2017 adjustment
(tons) 102
2017 EGU NOX
ozone-season
emissions budget
(tons)
Alabama ...........................................................
Arkansas ..........................................................
Illinois ...............................................................
Indiana .............................................................
Iowa ..................................................................
Kansas .............................................................
Kentucky ..........................................................
Louisiana ..........................................................
Maryland ..........................................................
Michigan ...........................................................
Mississippi ........................................................
Missouri ............................................................
New Jersey ......................................................
New York .........................................................
North Carolina ..................................................
Ohio ..................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................................
Tennessee .......................................................
Texas ...............................................................
Virginia .............................................................
West Virginia ....................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................
21,075
18,135
17,520
40,247
13,857
12,297
33,896
18,278
4,026
25,065
10,229
31,235
2,746
5,547
16,759
32,181
16,215
44,551
8,057
58,492
9,695
29,420
9,087
0.048
0.065
0.062
0.123
0.107
0.12
0.099
0.094
0.05
0.108
0.064
0.083
0.036
0.037
0.068
0.073
0.137
0.056
0.056
0.076
0.065
0.078
0.054
410,477,094
185,511,093
388,382,456
447,417,615
151,989,571
154,921,650
380,694,315
326,662,000
86,239,563
307,723,171
172,406,970
330,006,788
112,887,439
235,619,397
315,255,877
457,251,027
236,715,186
508,608,673
196,132,311
1,474,773,212
179,324,728
317,087,558
205,305,933
0
51
0
0
0
0
2,169
17
2,523
1,978
0
1,500
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
100
0
0
0
9,931
6,101
11,992
27,585
8,118
9,259
20,945
15,378
4,026
18,624
5,487
15,240
2,011
4,391
10,705
16,637
16,215
14,358
5,449
55,864
5,834
12,367
5,511
23 State Region ........................................
478,610
............................
7,581,393,627
............................
302,028
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:58 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
VII. Implementation Using the Existing
CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Allowance
Trading Program and Relationship to
Other Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. Background
This section describes implementing
and enforcing the budgets quantified in
section VI. In the 4-step CSAPR
methodology previously described, once
emission reduction potential is
quantified into emissions budgets, the
remaining step is to identify an
approach for ensuring that such
reductions occur and are enforceable.
As discussed previously, EPA is
proposing implement the budgets to
address the 2008 ozone NAAQS using
the existing CSAPR trading program that
allows limited interstate trading among
states participating in the ozone-season
trading program. The EPA proposes to
revise the existing budgets, developed to
address transport as to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, where necessary to reflect the
additional reductions that the EPA
identified as necessary to address
transport as to the 2008 NAAQS. The
EPA will implement the trading
program in each affected state through
the issuance of a FIP.
In electing to propose to implement
these near-term EGU reductions for the
2008 ozone standard using the existing
CSAPR trading infrastructure, the EPA
considered the many significant
advantages of continuing to use the
existing CSAPR program, including the
ease of transition to the new budgets,
the economic and administrative
efficiency of trading approaches, and
the flexibility afforded to sources
regarding compliance.
The EPA also considered views
expressed by some stakeholders that a
complementary short-term (e.g., 30-day)
rate-based limit would ensure that
control measures adopted to meet the
revised budgets continue to operate over
time. Some stakeholders have observed,
for example, that some existing SCR and
SNCR units may not have operated in
recent years because CAIR allowance
prices are below the operating costs of
the controls. The EPA notes that in such
cases, the CAIR emissions budgets that
states were required to meet to address
significant contribution for the 1997
100 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used
in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because
it would push their budget above their 2014
emissions.
101 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used
in calculating for Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas
because it would push their budget above their
2014 emissions.
102 The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used
in calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because
it would push their budget above their 2014
emissions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
NAAQS were in fact still being met. The
EPA will also evaluate power sector
behavior for 2015, the first year of
CSAPR implementation, and provide
that assessment for the final rule. The
EPA expects that certain aspects of this
proposal will alleviate some of these
concerns. In particular, this proposal is
aimed at establishing new, lower
emissions budgets that are calculated
based on a uniform cost that is reflective
of, among other things, operating those
controls. Furthermore, as described later
in this notice, we are proposing
adjustments to the CSAPR regulations
that, if adopted, would address the role
that the banked allowances may play in
allowance prices. For these reasons, the
EPA does not believe that including a
short-term complementary rate-based
limit in the proposed FIPs is necessary.
Nevertheless, we invite comment on the
need for such an approach and, from
commenters arguing that it is needed,
we invite suggestions for calculating it.
As explained in greater detail in
section IV, under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is
required to submit a SIP that provides
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each primary or
secondary NAAQS. According to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the SIP for
each state, regardless of a state’s
designation status for the relevant
NAAQS, must prohibit sources or other
types of emissions activity from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
that will ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ of the standard in a
downwind state or ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ of the standard in a
downwind state. Section IV also
explains in detail that the EPA is
obligated to promulgate FIPs when we
find that a state fails to submit a
complete SIP or the EPA disapproves a
SIP submittal.
The EPA recognizes that several states
included in this proposal have
submitted transport SIPs to address the
2008 ozone standard that the EPA is
reviewing, and it is possible that
additional states may submit SIPs in the
future. As explained in section IV
above, the EPA may only finalize FIPs
for states where FIP authority exists;
that is, for states where either the EPA
found that the state failed to submit a
complete transport SIP or where the
EPA has disapproved a transport SIP
submittal for that state. The EPA intends
to finalize these proposed FIPs together
in a single action and, to the greatest
extent possible, the EPA intends to take
final action on SIP submittals currently
before the agency prior to finalizing this
proposal. In the event that a state plans
to revise its SIP or submit a SIP prior to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75741
any final rule, contact your regional
office to alert the EPA.
By this action, the EPA is proposing
federal implementation plans with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
each state potentially covered by this
rule. Section VI above describes the
EPA’s approach to defining state-level
EGU emissions budgets that represent
the EGU emissions remaining after
reducing that state’s significant
contribution to downwind
nonattainment and/or interference with
maintenance. The EPA is proposing to
implement these EGU emissions
budgets in the FIPs through the CSAPR
EGU NOX ozone-season trading
program.
When the EPA finalized CSAPR in
2011 under the good neighbor provision
of the CAA to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX from power plants in eastern
states, the rule put in place regional
trading programs to quickly and costeffectively address pollution that affects
air quality in downwind states. The EPA
envisioned that the methodology could
be used to address transport concerns
under other existing NAAQS and future
NAAQS revisions. See 76 FR 48211 and
48246, August 8, 2011. Accordingly, the
EPA proposes to use the CSAPR ozoneseason trading program and related
provisions as codified under 40 CFR
part 97, subpart BBBBB and section
52.38, as amended in this proposal, to
implement the proposed EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. This program will
be initially implemented in each state
through a FIP.
In this notice, the EPA proposes that
the first control period for the
requirements is the 2017 ozone season.
A covered state would be required to
demonstrate compliance with FIP
requirements for each subsequent ozone
season until it submits, and the EPA
approves, a SIP or the EPA promulgates
another federal rule replacing the FIP.
The EPA notes that the compliance
flexibility provided by the CSAPR NOX
ozone-season trading program allows
sources to demonstrate compliance by
holding allowances and does not
prescribe unit-specific and technologyspecific NOX mitigation. In other words,
while the EPA quantified EGU NOX
reductions resulting from mitigation
strategies such as operating or installing
(or upgrading to) state-of-the-art
combustion controls, no particular
reduction strategy is required for any
specific unit because the Act only
requires that an upwind state’s aggregate
emissions neither significantly
contribute to nonattainment nor
interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in a downwind state.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75742
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
In practice, the EGU emissions
budgets that the EPA is proposing in
this action are achievable for each of the
23 states through operating existing SCR
and SNCR controls, installing or
upgrading to state-of-the-art combustion
controls, or shifting generation to lowNOX emitting units. The EPA believes
that this proposed rule provides
sufficient lead time to implement these
control strategies by the 2017 ozone
season. For the EPA’s assessment of the
feasibility of controls for 2017, refer to
section VI above and the EGU NOX
Reduction TSD in the docket for this
proposal.103
In this section of the preamble, the
following topics are addressed: FIP
requirements and key elements of the
CSAPR trading programs; participation
in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program with a new budget; source
monitoring and reporting; replacing the
FIP with a SIP; title V permitting; and
the relationship of this proposed rule to
existing programs (NOX SIP Call,
CSAPR trading programs, Clean Power
Plan (CPP), and other ozone transport
programs).
B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements
of the CSAPR Trading Programs
The original CSAPR establishes an
NOX ozone-season allowance trading
program that allows covered sources
within each state to trade allowances
with other sources within the same
trading group. Pursuant to the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program,
sources are required to hold one
allowance for each ton of NOX emitted
during the ozone season. We propose to
use that same regional trading program,
with adjusted budgets and certain
additional revisions described below, as
the compliance remedy for the proposed
FIPs to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The first control period for this updated
CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program is proposed to begin with the
2017 ozone season, on May 1, 2017.
In this section, the EPA is proposing
to use the existing NOX ozone-season
allowance trading system that was
established under CSAPR in 40 CFR
part 97, subpart BBBBB, to implement
the emission reductions identified and
quantified in the FIPs for this action.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Applicability
In this proposed rule, the EPA would
maintain the applicability provisions in
the final CSAPR rule for the NOX ozoneseason trading program (see 40 CFR
97.504).
103 The EPA notes that a state can instead require
non-EGU NOX emission reductions through a SIP,
if they choose to do so.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Under the general applicability
provisions of the CSAPR final rule, a
covered unit is any stationary fossilfuel-fired boiler or combustion turbine
serving at any time on or after January
1, 2005, a generator with nameplate
capacity exceeding 25 MW producing
electricity for sale, with the exception of
certain cogeneration units and solid
waste incineration units (see 76 FR
48273, August 8, 2011, for a discussion
on applicability in the final CSAPR
rule). The EPA is not proposing any
changes to this provision.
2. State Budgets
This proposal includes revisions to 40
CFR 97.510 to reflect new budgets for
states covered under this proposal as
delineated in section VI above. This
includes the NOX ozone-season trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, and Indian
country new unit set-asides for 2017
and beyond, described in further detail
below.
For states already covered by the
original CSAPR ozone-season program,
the EPA proposes to update CSAPR
EGU NOX ozone-season budgets to
reflect obligations to reduce interstate
transport to address the 2008 ozone
standard. For states that are newly
brought into the CSAPR ozone-season
program because emissions from the
states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in a downwind state (i.e., Kansas based
on information used to develop this
proposal), the proposal includes an EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budget.
For states currently in the CSAPR
ozone-season trading program, but not
identified as contributing to interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS
(i.e., Georgia based on information used
to develop this proposal), participation
in CSAPR would continue unchanged
pursuant to their previously-defined
obligation (budget) with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA proposes to establish
reduced or new ozone-season emissions
budgets for the 23 eastern states affected
by the transport rule for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA proposes to
implement these emissions budgets by
allocating allowances to sources in
those states equal to the proposed
budgets for compliance starting in 2017.
The EPA will establish allowance
allocations for the existing units in each
state through this rulemaking. Portions
of the state budgets will be set aside for
new units, and the EPA will use the
existing processes set forth in the
CSAPR regulations to annually allocate
allowances to the new units in each
state from the new unit set-asides. For
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
states that are currently in the CSAPR
ozone-season program, but are not
affected under this proposed transport
rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
Georgia based on information used to
develop this proposal), the EPA will
maintain the state’s budget as finalized
in the original CSAPR rulemakings.
3. Allocations of Emission Allowances
Pursuant to the CSAPR trading
program regulations, a covered source is
required to hold sufficient allowances to
cover the emissions from all covered
units at the source during the control
period for the NOX ozone season. The
EPA assesses compliance with these
allowance-holding requirements at the
source (i.e., facility) level.
This section explains that the EPA
proposes to allocate a state’s budget to
existing units and new units in that
state by applying the same allocation
approach as finalized in CSAPR, based
on a unit’s historical heat input and its
maximum historical emissions (see 76
FR 48284, August 8, 2011). This section
also describes allocation for Tribes, the
new unit set-asides and Indian country
new unit set-asides in each state,
allocations to units that are not
operating; and the recordation of
allowance allocations in source
compliance accounts.
A. Allocations for Existing Units
The EPA proposes to implement each
state’s EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budget in the trading program
by allocating the number of emission
allowances to sources within that state,
equivalent to the tonnage of that specific
state budget, as shown in section VI. For
these 23 states, the EPA would allocate
allowances under each state’s budget to
covered units in that state. The portion
of a state budget allocated to existing
units in that state is the state budget
minus the new unit set-aside and minus
the Indian country new unit set-aside.
The new unit set-asides are portions of
each budget reserved for new units that
might locate in each state or in Indian
country in the future. For the existing
source level allocations, see the TSD
called, ‘‘Existing Source Level
Allocations for the 2008 NOX Ozoneseason Rule FIPs,’’ in the docket for this
rulemaking. The methodology used to
allocate allowances to individual units
in a particular state has no impact on
that state’s budget.
For the purpose of allocations, an
‘‘existing unit’’ in CSAPR is one that
commenced commercial operation prior
to January 1, 2010. For the 23 states
included in this proposed rulemaking
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA
proposes to identify an ‘‘existing unit’’
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
as one that commenced commercial
operation prior to January 1, 2015. EPA
has updated information on affected
units that have commenced commercial
operation prior to January 1, 2015
(currently defined either as existing
units or as new units pursuant to the
current CSAPR regulations) that would
allow these units to be considered
existing units for purposes of allocations
and would allow new unit set-asides to
be fully reserved for any future new
units in affected states or Indian
country. The EPA is not proposing to
change the January 1, 2010 date for
states that remain in the original CSAPR
and are not affected by the changes
proposed here (i.e., Georgia with respect
to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
allowances and all states with respect to
CSAPR SO2 or NOX annual allowances);
thus, the only allowance allocations that
are proposed to be changed in this
rulemaking for any units under any of
the CSAPR trading programs are
allocations of NOX ozone-season
allowances from budgets that are
proposed to be revised in this proposed
rule.
The EPA proposes to follow the
original CSAPR methodology for
distributing, or allocating, emission
allowances to existing units based on
the unit’s share of the state’s heat input,
limited by the unit’s maximum
historical emissions. This approach uses
the highest three of the last five years to
establish the heat input baseline for
each unit, and constrains the unit-level
allocations so as not to exceed the
maximum historical baseline emissions
during 2007–2014. As discussed in the
original CSAPR final rule (see 76 FR
48288–9, August 8, 2011), the EPA finds
no advantage or disadvantage in this
approach that would penalize those
units that have already invested in
cleaner fuels or other pollution
reduction measures. The EPA considers
this allocation approach to be fuelneutral, control-neutral, transparent,
based on reliable data, and similar to
allocation methodologies previously
used in the NOX SIP Call and Acid Rain
Program. The EPA requests comments
on following the CSAPR approach for
existing unit allocations in states
covered by this proposed rule as to the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
For states that have EPA-approved
abbreviated SIP revisions adopting a
different allocation methodology for
sources located within the state for
CSAPR for the 2017 ozone season and
beyond, those provisions would address
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
the allocation of revised NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets established
under this proposed rule, provided that
the SIP revision includes not only
specific allocations given the total state
budget expected at the time of the SIP
revision, but also a methodology for
determining allocations from any given
total state budget. For states that have
EPA-approved full SIP revisions, the
EPA proposes to use the EPA-approved
allocation provisions of the state’s SIP
revision to allocate allowances to
sources in that particular state using the
revised emissions budget proposed to
address interstate ozone transport for
the 2008 NAAQS, again provided that
the SIP includes not only specific
allocations but a methodology for
determining allocations from any given
total state budget.
Further, where the state regulation
approved as a full or abbreviated SIP
revision does not contain an allocation
methodology but the materials
submitted by the state to support EPA’s
approval of that regulation as a SIP
revision contain the state’s allocation
method, described in an unambiguous
manner, the EPA seeks comment on
using that state-approved methodology
to determine the allocations of
allowances to sources in the state under
the FIPs established in this proposed
rule. These possible approaches could
prevent a state from needing to submit
another SIP revision to implement the
same allocation provisions under this
proposed rule that the state has already
implemented under CSAPR before
adoption of this proposed rule.
For all other states, the EPA proposes
to use the allocation method previously
finalized in the final CSAPR rulemaking
as discussed in this section. These
provisions would not prevent any state
(one with an EPA-approved SIP revision
or without) from submitting an
alternative allocation methodology
under this proposed rule for later
compliance years. EPA requests
comment on this modified allocation
approach for states with EPA-approved
SIP revisions under the current rule.
b. Allocations for New Units
For the purpose of allocations, CSAPR
identifies a ‘‘new unit’’ as one that
commenced commercial operation on or
after January 1, 2010, and provides a
methodology for allocating emission
allowances to new units from new unit
set-asides in each state and to new units
that locate in Indian country. See 76 FR
48290–48294 (Aug. 8, 2011), for more
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75743
information. The FIPs that EPA is
proposing will incorporate a trading
program in which EPA is proposing to
define a covered unit as a ‘‘new unit’’
if it commences commercial operation
on or after January 1, 2015; if it becomes
covered by meeting applicability criteria
subsequent to January 1, 2015; if it
relocates into a different state covered
by this FIP; or if it was an ‘‘existing’’
covered unit that stopped operating for
2 consecutive years but resumes
commercial operation at some point
thereafter. To the extent that states seek
approval of SIPs with different
allocation provisions than EPA, these
SIPs may seek to define new units
differently.
The EPA further proposes that its
trading program will make allocations to
each state for new units (the new unit
set-aside) equal to a basic minimum 2
percent of the total state budget, plus
the projected amount of emissions from
planned units in that state (for instance,
if planned units in state A are projected
to emit 3 percent of the state’s NOX
ozone-season emissions budget, then the
new unit set-aside for the state would be
set at 5 percent, consisting of the basic
minimum 2 percent plus an additional
3 percent for planned units). See 76 FR
48292. New units may receive
allocations starting with the first year
they are subject to the allowanceholding requirements of the rule. If
unallocated to new units, set-asides are
redistributed to unretired existing units
before the compliance deadline. The
EPA requests comments on following
the CSAPR approach for new unit
allocations under this proposal. (For
more detail on the CSAPR new unit setaside provisions, see 40 CFR 97.511(b)
and 97.512.)
The EPA notes that applying the
CSAPR approach using the data for this
proposal results in a new-unit set-aside
for New Jersey that is greater than 50%
of the total proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budget for the state.
This result is influenced by the EPA’s
projected emissions rates for new units
that are anticipated to come online
within states. The EPA seeks comment
on these data, which are available in the
IPM documentation in the docket for
this proposal. Further, the EPA seeks
comment on whether additional data
should be considered—for example,
reported NOX emission rates of recently
constructed new NGCC units in each
state.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75744
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.B–1—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON NEW-UNIT SET-ASIDE AMOUNTS, REFLECTING PROPOSED EGU
EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TONS)
Proposed
EGU NOX
emissions
budgets
(tons)
State
New-unit setaside amount
(percent)
New-unit setaside amount
(tons)
Alabama ...........................................................................................................
Arkansas ..........................................................................................................
Illinois ...............................................................................................................
Indiana .............................................................................................................
Iowa .................................................................................................................
Kansas .............................................................................................................
Kentucky ..........................................................................................................
Louisiana ..........................................................................................................
Maryland ..........................................................................................................
Michigan ...........................................................................................................
Mississippi ........................................................................................................
Missouri ............................................................................................................
New Jersey ......................................................................................................
New York .........................................................................................................
North Carolina ..................................................................................................
Ohio .................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................
Tennessee .......................................................................................................
Texas ...............................................................................................................
Virginia .............................................................................................................
West Virginia ....................................................................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................................................................
9,979
6,949
12,078
28,284
8,351
9,272
21,519
15,807
4,026
19,115
5,910
15,323
2,015
4,450
12,275
16,660
16,215
14,387
5,481
58,002
6,818
13,390
5,561
2
2
5
2
5
3
3
4
12
2
10
2
57
2
2
2
2
7
2
5
27
2
2
205
141
591
565
419
281
647
628
485
382
590
314
1,151
93
248
337
325
1,017
109
2,910
1,844
268
121
23 State Region ........................................................................................
311,867
........................
13,671
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Allocations for Tribes and New Units
in Indian Country
Tribes are not required to submit
tribal implementation plans. However,
as explained in the EPA’s regulations
outlining Tribal Clean Air Act authority,
the EPA is authorized to promulgate
FIPs for Indian country as necessary or
appropriate to protect air quality if a
tribe does not submit and get EPA
approval of a tribal implementation
plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a); see also 42
U.S.C. 7601(d)(4). For this proposed
ozone rule, there are no existing affected
units in Indian country in the states
affected by this rule.
Under the current rule, allowances to
possible future new units locating in
Indian country are allocated by the EPA
from an Indian country new unit setaside established for each state with
Indian country. (See 40 CFR
97.511(b)(2) and 97.512(b).) Because
states generally have no SIP authority in
reservation areas of Indian country and
other areas of Indian country over
which a tribe or EPA has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction, the EPA
continues to allocate such allowances to
sources locating in such areas of Indian
country within a state even if the state
submits a SIP to replace the FIP. (40
CFR 52.38(b)(5)(v) and (vi) and
52.38(b)(6).) The EPA reserves 0.1
percent of the total state budget for new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
units in Indian country within that state
(5 percent of the basic 2 percent new
unit set-aside prior to any increase in a
state’s new unit set-aside amount for
planned units). Unallocated allowances
from a state’s Indian country new unit
set-aside are returned to the state’s new
unit set-aside and allocated according to
the methodology described above. The
EPA requests comment on following the
CSAPR approach for new unit
allocations in such areas of Indian
country under the transport rule for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
d. Units That Do Not Operate and the
New Unit Set-Aside
The EPA proposes to continue to
apply for purposes of this proposed rule
the existing CSAPR provision under
which a covered unit that does not
operate for a period of two consecutive
years will receive allowance allocations
for a total of up to five years of nonoperation. 40 CFR 97.511(a)(2). Starting
in the fifth year after the first year of
non-operation, allowances allocated to
such units will instead be allocated to
the new unit set-aside for the state in
which the non-operating unit is located.
This approach allows the new unit setasides to grow over time. The EPA
requests comment on retaining this
timeline for allowance allocation for
non-operating units or changing the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Indian country
set-aside
amount
(tons)
8
9
16
19
6
4
12
16
58
6
154
allowance allocation for non-operating
units to, for instance, two years or three
years, in which case allowances would
revert to the new unit set-aside in the
second or third year after the first of two
consecutive years of non-operation of a
unit.
4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels,
and Penalties
In the original CSAPR, the EPA
developed assurance provisions,
including variability limits and
assurance levels (with associated
compliance penalties), to assure that
each state will meet its pollution control
obligations and to accommodate
inherent year-to-year variability in statelevel EGU operations.
The original CSAPR budgets, and the
updated CSAPR emissions budgets
proposed in this notice, reflect EGU
operations in an ‘‘average year.’’
However, year-to-year variability in
EGU operations occurs due to the
interconnected nature of the power
sector and from changing weather
patterns, demand growth, or disruptions
in electricity supply from other units or
from the transmission grid. Recognizing
this, the FIP includes variability limits,
which define the amount by which state
emissions may exceed the level of the
budgets in a given year to account for
this variability in EGU operations. A
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
state’s budget plus its variability limit
equals a state’s assurance level, which
acts as a cap on each state’s NOX
emissions during a control period (that
is, during the May-September ozone
season in the case of this rule).
To establish the variability limits in
the original CSAPR, the EPA analyzed
historical state-level heat input
variability as a proxy for emissions
variability, assuming constant emission
rates. (See 76 FR 48265, August 8,
2011.) The variability limits for ozoneseason NOX in the original CSAPR were
calculated as 21 percent of each state’s
budget, and these variability limits were
then codified in 40 CFR 97.510 along
with the state budgets. Applying the
CSAPR approach, the EPA proposes to
set new variability limits applying the
same 21 percent figure as determined in
the original CSAPR to this proposed
75745
rule’s budgets. The EPA proposes that
the same 21% figure is appropriate to
use because variability in state-level
heat input across a multi-year period is
expected to be relatively consistent
around long-term trends. The EPA seeks
comment on this approach. Table VII.B–
2 shows the proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, variability
limits, and assurance levels for each
state.
TABLE VII.B–2—PROPOSED EGU NOX OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS BUDGETS REFLECTING EGU NOX MITIGATION
AVAILABLE FOR 2017 AT $1,300 PER TON, VARIABILITY LIMITS, AND ASSURANCE LEVELS (TONS)
EGU NOX
ozone-season
emissions
budgets
State
Variability
limits
EGU NOX
ozone-season
assurance
levels
9,979
6,949
12,078
28,284
8,351
9,272
21,519
15,807
4,026
19,115
5,910
15,323
2,015
4,450
12,275
16,660
16,215
14,387
5,481
58,002
6,818
13,390
5,561
2,096
1,459
2,536
5,940
1,754
1,947
4,519
3,319
845
4,014
1,241
3,218
423
935
2,578
3,499
3,405
3,021
1,151
12,180
1,432
2,812
1,168
12,075
8,408
14,614
34,224
10,105
11,219
26,038
19,126
4,871
23,129
7,151
18,541
2,438
5,385
14,853
20,159
19,620
17,408
6,632
70,182
8,250
16,202
6,729
Region cap ...............................................................................................................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Alabama ...........................................................................................................................
Arkansas ..........................................................................................................................
Illinois ...............................................................................................................................
Indiana .............................................................................................................................
Iowa .................................................................................................................................
Kansas .............................................................................................................................
Kentucky ..........................................................................................................................
Louisiana ..........................................................................................................................
Maryland ..........................................................................................................................
Michigan ...........................................................................................................................
Mississippi ........................................................................................................................
Missouri ............................................................................................................................
New Jersey ......................................................................................................................
New York .........................................................................................................................
North Carolina ..................................................................................................................
Ohio .................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .........................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ....................................................................................................................
Tennessee .......................................................................................................................
Texas ...............................................................................................................................
Virginia .............................................................................................................................
West Virginia ....................................................................................................................
Wisconsin .........................................................................................................................
311,867
65,493
............................
The assurance provisions include
penalties that are triggered when the
state emissions as a whole exceed its
assurance level. The original CSAPR
provided that a state that exceeds its
assurance level in a given year is
assessed a total of 3-to-1 allowance
surrender on the excess tons. Each
excess ton above the assurance level
must be met with one allowance for
normal compliance plus two additional
allowances to satisfy the penalty. The
penalty is designed to deter state-level
emissions from exceeding assurance
levels. This was referred to in the
original CSAPR as air quality-assured
trading that accounts for variability in
the electricity sector but also ensures
that the necessary emission reductions
occur within each covered state. If a
state does not exceed its assurance level,
no penalties are incurred by any source.
Establishing assurance levels with
compliance penalties therefore responds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
to the court’s holding in North Carolina
requiring the EPA to assure that sources
in each state were required to eliminate
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state.104
To assess the penalty under the
assurance provisions, the EPA evaluates
whether any state’s total EGU emissions
in a control period exceeded the state’s
assurance level, and if so, the EPA then
determines which owners and operators
of units in the state will be subject to an
allowance surrender requirement based
on each source’s emissions as compared
to its unit-level assurance level. Since a
single designated representative (DR)
often represents multiple sources, the
EPA evaluates which groups of units at
the common DR level had emissions
exceeding the respective common DR’s
104 531
PO 00000
F.3d at 908.
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
share of the state assurance level,
regardless of whether the individual
source had enough allowances to cover
its emissions during the control period.
This provision is triggered only if two
criteria are met: (1) The group of sources
and units with a common DR are
located in a state where the total state
EGU emissions for a control period
exceed the state assurance level; and (2)
that group with the common DR had
emissions exceeding the respective DR’s
share of the state assurance level.
For more information on the CSAPR
assurance provisions see 76 FR 48294
(August 8, 2011).
5. Implementation Approaches for
Transitioning the Existing CSAPR NOX
Ozone-Season Program To Address
Transport for a Newer NAAQS
Consistent with the original CSAPR
approach, EPA proposes that in this
updated rulemaking, EGUs would be
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75746
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
able to trade NOX ozone-season
emission allowances among units
within the state and across state
boundaries, with emissions and use of
allowances limited by the assurance
provisions. The following sections
describe approaches to transition the
existing CSAPR program designed for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address
interstate ozone transport for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
A primary focus of this section is the
extent to which allowances created to
address interstate transport with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, reflecting
emissions budgets at $500 per ton, are
fungible with allowances created under
this proposal to address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
reflecting emissions budgets at $1,300
per ton. The EPA proposes that these
implementation tools are not
presumptively equivalent, given that
they were developed to address ozone
transport under different NAAQS and
using different cost thresholds.
However, as further discussed below,
the EPA is proposing approaches under
which allowances allocated under
budgets established to address the 1997
NAAQS could be used for compliance
for addressing interstate transport for
the 2008 NAAQS, subject to specific
limitations. The EPA is also taking
comment on several other approaches
for addressing the transition from a
program in which all budgets were
established based on an integrated
analysis using a single control cost
threshold to address the 1997 NAAQS
to a program with a mix of budgets
established in independent analyses
using different control cost thresholds,
in some cases to address the 1997
NAAQS and in other cases to address
the 2008 NAAQS.
a. Use of CSAPR Ozone-season Trading
Program Bank in the Transport Rule for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Trading
Program
Since CSAPR was promulgated in
2011, the U.S. electric sector has
undergone considerable transformation
primarily due to economic and market
forces precipitated by the natural gas
boom. For example, Henry Hub natural
gas prices reached below $2.00 per
million BTU in 2012 and were in the
$2.00–$3.00 range for most of 2012.
These prices are below the level initially
anticipated when establishing the phase
1 and 2 budgets, and have made the
operation of lower emitting units more
competitive, putting more downward
pressure on emissions. There has also
been turnover in the power generation
fleet as newer, lower emitting sources
replace older, higher emitting sources,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
putting further downward pressure on
emissions. Approximately 28.5 GW of
coal units retired from the fleet between
2012 and June of 2015. In addition,
demand growth has slowed; a majority
of U.S. states have implemented
renewable portfolio standards and other
energy efficiency programs; and highefficiency building designs, residential
energy conservation, roof-top solar, and
other forms of distributed generation
have grown. In combination, these
factors have significantly reduced EGU
NOX emissions between 2012 and 2015.
As a result of protracted litigation,
CSAPR implementation was delayed by
three years, from 2012 to 2015. Due to
this delay, combined with the market
forces and changes that took place
during that timeframe, expectations are
that total banked allowances for the
CSAPR ozone-season trading program
could be in excess of 210,000 tons by
the start of the 2017 ozone-season
compliance period, which is more than
twice the emission reduction potential
estimated at the $1,300 per ton control
level described in section VI above. This
number was estimated by comparing
recent measured emission levels to the
original CSAPR NOX ozone-season
phase 1 emissions budgets, assuming
EGU emissions in CSAPR NOX ozoneseason states for 2015 and 2016 would
continue at 2014 levels.105
The use of allowance banks generally
provide a glide path for sources required
to meet more stringent emission limits
in later years and accommodate year-toyear variability in operation. However,
allowing unrestricted use of the large
number of banked allowances for
compliance with this proposed rule
could result in regional 2017 ozone
season NOX emissions that exceed the
collective state budgets quantified in
this rulemaking to address transported
air pollution with respect to the 2008
ozone standard. While the assurance
provisions included in CSAPR do limit
the ultimate amount of pollution that
may occur in these states in 2017 (i.e.,
no matter how large an allowance bank
may exist, only a portion of that bank
may be used in a state in any given year
without exceeding the assurance levels
and incurring penalties), unrestricted
use of the bank in this situation could
allow emissions to exceed the state
budgets, up to the assurance level, year
after year.
As described in CSAPR, the flexibility
provided by the assurance provisions is
not designed to be used repeatedly, year
105 This data analysis relies on 40 CFR part 75
emissions reporting data as available in EPA Air
Markets Program Data available at https://
ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
after year. Rather, the use of banked
allowances is intended to be limited by
binding emissions budgets such that
drawing down the bank in one year is
only possible because of actions taken to
build up the bank in a previous year.
Moreover, a relatively large allowance
bank that enables emissions budgets to
be exceeded year after year may
encourage sources to postpone emission
reductions that would be more timely in
the 2017 timeframe in order to align
reductions with the downwind area
attainment dates for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing and taking
comment on a range of options for how
to treat the use of banked 2015 and 2016
CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances
by units in the 23 states with new or
updated budgets in this proposal. The
use of banked allowances by states that
are not included in the proposed FIPs to
address ozone transport under the 2008
NAAQS (i.e., Georgia for CSAPR NOX
ozone-season program and all states for
CSAPR SO2 and NOX annual programs)
would not be affected by these options.
The EPA is proposing that allowances
issued for compliance in 2015 and 2016
under CSAPR may be used for
compliance under the updated CSAPR
from 2017 forward in order to smooth
implementation in the first few years
under the new budgets. However, the
EPA is proposing to impose certain
limits on the use of these banked
allowances starting in 2017.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that
sources in the 23 states with new or
updated budgets in this proposal may
use all of their banked allowances, but
at a tonnage authorization level
significantly lower than one ton per
allowance. This would be realized
through a surrender ratio greater than
one pre-2017 allowances (vintage 2015
or 2016) to cover one ton of NOX
emitted in 2017 and each year
thereafter. The surrender ratio, such as
four-for-one or two-for-one, would
require more than one pre-2017 banked
allowance to be used for each ton of
ozone season NOX emitted in 2017 and
beyond. This would have the dual effect
of carrying over the banked allowances
into the new program to promote
program continuity, while also
recognizing the environmental
objectives of the updated ozone NAAQS
for 2008 and the corresponding new
state emission budgets designed to help
move air quality towards compliance
with that NAAQS standard. A surrender
ratio would respect the flexibility of
sources to operate at their assurance
levels in the program’s early years, but
would reduce the ability for the
collective EGU fleet to repeatedly
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
exceed the emissions budget year after
year.
Finally, EPA believes a surrender
ratio is appropriate as it reflects the fact
that tighter budgets will put upward
pressure on allowance value in the
future. Therefore, fewer allowances will
be needed to reach the same value of a
current allowance holding, making a
surrender ratio a natural complement to
carrying over the value of the banked
allowances in a program where more
stringent emission budgets are replacing
less stringent emission budgets.
EPA is proposing a surrender ratio
greater than one-for-one, such as twofor-one or four-for-one. For analytic
purposes in this rulemaking, it reflects
the four-for-one surrender ratio to
illustrate one potential surrender ratio.
However, in the final rule, EPA would
update this assumption to reflect the
surrender ratio finalized.
This ratio of four or two banked
allowances to one ton of emissions is
derived from the ratio of the anticipated
allowance bank in 2017 (approximately
210,000 allowances) to the ozone season
variability limit (i.e., the difference
between the sum of the emissions
budgets for all 23 states and the sum of
the assurance levels for all 23 states;
approximately 60,000 tons) or the ozone
season variability limit multiplied by
two (120,000 tons), rounded to the
nearest whole number. The EPA
identified this approach to limit the
emissions impact of using banked
allowances to the magnitude of all states
emitting up to their assurance levels for
one or two years. The variability limit
respects the upper bound variation in
emissions and load EPA would expect
in any given year. Thus, the carryover
of banked allowances equal to one or
two years’ worth of variability limits
provides the affected fleet with the
ability to accommodate potential
variation from the mean in its load and
emission patterns in the first years of
the program, while balancing the need
to ensure that emissions are reduced, on
average, to the level of the budgets and
within the assurance levels in
subsequent years.
The EPA believes that a surrender
ratio approach provides a means for the
existing CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season
allowances to retain some value, while
appropriately mitigating the potential
adverse impact of the allowance bank
on the emission-reducing actions
needed from affected units in states
with obligations to address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA seeks comment on a surrender
ratio approach and on the use of a ratio,
such as two-for-one or four-for-one, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
whether an alternative ratio would be
appropriate.
The EPA is also soliciting comment
on another approach that we believe
could achieve these same goals (i.e.,
valuing the anticipated CSAPR
allowance bank while promoting nearterm emission reductions). Under this
alternative approach, the EPA would
issue fewer allowances than the tons
quantified in state budgets for the 23
states affected by this rulemaking in the
first three years of program
implementation (i.e. 2017, 2018, and
2019). This approach recognizes that
2015 and 2016 allowances are available
to sources for compliance and would
allow use of those banked CSAPR NOX
ozone allowances at a one-to-one turnin ratio (i.e., one allowance is
surrendered for one ton of emissions).
By reducing overall allocations for a
period of time, the impact of states
using those banked allowances on
emission levels would be mitigated.
The EPA seeks comment on what
percentage (below 100 percent) of
allowances to issue, and over what
number of years, under this alternative
approach. As a specific example, the
EPA seeks comment on implementing
this approach in a manner such that the
EPA would issue allowances to sources
within each of the 23 states with
updated budgets under this proposal at
a level of 85 percent of the proposed
emissions budgets for the first three
years that the new budgets are effective.
Using the proposed EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budget of 9,979 tons
for Alabama as an example, this would
mean issuing approximately 8,482
allowances for each of the 2017 through
2019 (inclusive) control periods (and
the full budget for each subsequent
control period). Applying this approach
to all 23 states with updated budgets
under this proposal (which sum to
312,824 allowances) would mean that
EPA would issue approximately 266,900
allowances across those states in each of
the 2017, 2018, and 2019 control
periods. EGUs in those states would be
able to use allowances from the
anticipated 210,000 allowance bank in
addition to allowances issued for these
years in order to comply with the
updated CSAPR emission requirements.
Allocating approximately 266,900
allowances for the first three years of the
updated requirements would, based on
current estimates, result in
approximately 47,000 banked
allowances used for compliance each
year. This would leave approximately
70,000 banked allowances, which is
roughly equivalent to the regional
variability limit (i.e., the difference
between the states’ collective emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75747
budgets and their collective assurance
levels). As under the illustrative fourfor-one surrender ratio option, the
remaining amount of banked allowances
that would remain after using this initial
reduced allocation is approximately the
amount of banked allowances that
would allow all states to emit up to their
assurance levels for one year.
The EPA also seeks comment on what
other percentages of the budget and
time-frames could be appropriately used
to implement this alternative approach.
As in the specific example above, the
EPA would seek a combination of time
and recordation percentage such that
the ultimate influence of the anticipated
allowance bank is limited to
approximately the regional variability
limit (i.e., the difference between the
collective emissions budgets and the
collective assurance levels).
Under either approach, the EPA
would conduct unit-level allowance
allocations in the same manner as
described above, such that each unit’s
share of its state’s total allowances
issued is determined by that allocation
approach whether the EPA issues
allowances in the full amount of the
state budget with a surrender ratio for
banked allowances or in a lesser amount
to address the potential effect of the
allowance bank (as entertained in this
alternative on which we are inviting
comment). In other words, the effect of
this alternative approach would be to
reduce unit-level allowance allocations
in those years in a proportional manner
(e.g., all unit-level allowance allocations
would decrease by the same percentage
as the reduction in total allowances
issued below that state’s budget).
Additionally, the EPA is soliciting
comment on less and more restrictive
approaches to address use of the CSAPR
EGU NOX ozone allowance bank.
Specifically, the EPA seeks comment
on: (1) Allowing banked 2015 and 2016
CSAPR NOX ozone allowances to be
used for compliance with the proposed
budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
starting in 2017 at a 1-to-1 ratio, or (2)
completely disallowing the use of
banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX
ozone allowances for compliance with
the proposed budgets for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS starting in 2017. The EPA is
also soliciting comment on whether and
how the assurance provision penalty
might be increased, in conjunction with
any of the above approaches, to address
the relationship of the allowance bank
to emissions occurring under this
revised program from 2017 onward.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75748
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season
Allowances From States Addressing the
1997 Ozone NAAQS for Compliance in
States Addressing the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS
Consistent with the original CSAPR,
EGUs covered by the seasonal NOX
budget trading program that will be
incorporated into these proposed FIPs
are able to trade NOX ozone-season
emission allowances among units
within the state and across state
boundaries, with emissions and the use
of allowances limited by the assurance
provisions.
The EPA is considering how to
transition allowance trading between
the group of states that are in the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season program with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS but will not
have updated emissions budgets
proposed in this action (e.g., Georgia
based on this proposal) and the group of
states for which the EPA is proposing to
establish new or lower budgets to
address the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this
action.
The EPA believes that, where
appropriate and feasible, continuity of
programs is important, particularly for
market-based and other power sector
regulations, as this sector makes longterm investment and operational
decisions. However, CSAPR allowances
issued under budgets established to
address the 1997 ozone NAAQS using a
$500 per ton cost threshold in one state
may not be appropriately valued to
reduce interstate ozone transport in
another state for the 2008 NAAQS under
this proposal where budgets are being
established using a $1,300 per ton cost
threshold. In the original CSAPR
rulemaking, the EPA discussed the
concern that allowing unrestricted
trading between groups of states whose
budgets were established using different
cost thresholds would impact whether
the necessary emission reductions
would be achieved within each state.106
The assurance provisions used in
CSAPR provide some assurance that
emission reductions will occur within
each state, but in the CSAPR rulemaking
the EPA acknowledged concerns that
the assurance provisions alone may not
be sufficient. Consistent with those
previously acknowledged concerns, the
EPA is proposing in this rulemaking not
to allow these two groups of states to
trade without some additional
assurances that the emission reductions
will be appropriately achieved within
each state.
However, because of the relatively
small size of the group of states with
106 76
FR at 48263–64.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
budgets set using the $500 per ton cost
threshold, the EPA is not proposing to
prohibit altogether trading between the
two groups in this instance. The EPA
does not expect that a single state (i.e.,
Georgia) would drastically influence
emission reductions in the other 23
states covered by this proposed rule.
EPA is instead proposing to permit
trading between the two groups of ozone
states subject to certain restrictions on
trading. In particular, the EPA is
proposing to require that sources in
states addressing the 2008 ozone
NAAQS under this proposal may use
allowances issued in states only
addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS via
the CSAPR trading programs (e.g.,
Georgia) at a rate of 2.5 allowances for
each ton of NOX emitted. The EPA
proposes a ratio of 2.5-to-1 in order to
align with the ratio of the cost of ozone
season EGU NOX reduction promulgated
in the original CSAPR (i.e., $500 per
ton) to the cost proposed for this
rulemaking (i.e., $1,300 per ton). The
EPA proposes this restriction as
sufficient, in conjunction with the
assurance provisions, to protect the
needed reductions in the 23 states
addressing interstate transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA requests
comments on this approach. The EPA
also seeks comment on using a different
ratio than 2.5-to-1, and on using the
same ratio as the ratio for the use of
banked allowances, whether that ratio is
4-to-1 as proposed or a different ratio.
The EPA is also seeking comment on
allowing trading without distinction
between the particular NAAQS (1997
ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS)
for which an upwind state has
obligations to reduce transported
pollution, and subject only to the
constraints of the CSAPR assurance
provisions with no additional
restrictions. The EPA is soliciting
comment on whether and how the
assurance provision penalty might be
increased in conjunction with this
approach.
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking
comment on separating compliance
between groups of upwind states under
each NAAQS, whereby the use of NOX
ozone-season emission allowances from
one group (e.g., sources in states only
covered for the 1997 ozone NAAQS)
would be disallowed for compliance use
by units in the other group (e.g., sources
in states covered for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS), similar to the existing
separation between the CSAPR SO2
Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2
programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-season
Allowances Between States With
Different Control Stringencies
Addressing the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
As discussed in Section VI of this
proposal, the EPA notes that the
evaluation of EGU NOX requirements for
the final rule could show one or more
states fully addressing their good
neighbor obligation based on ozone
season NOX control requirements
represented by one cost level while one
or more other states have ozone season
NOX control requirements based on a
more stringent cost level. In this
situation, the EPA proposes that it
would quantify requirements for these
different groups of states based on
different uniform control stringencies.
However, CSAPR allowances issued
under budgets established using a one
cost threshold (e.g., $1,300 per ton) in
one state may not be appropriately
valued to reduce interstate ozone
transport in another state where budgets
might be established using different cost
threshold (e.g., $3,400 per ton).
Consistent with the previous discussion
(regarding allowances issued in states
continuing to address the 1997 ozone
NAAQS under budgets established
using $500 per ton threshold), the EPA
is proposing to permit trading between
these groups of states subject to certain
restrictions on trading. In particular, the
EPA is proposing to require that sources
in states with emissions budgets
established using the more stringent
cost thresholds (e.g., $3,400 per ton)
may use allowances issued in states
with emissions budgets established
using the less stringent cost thresholds
(e.g., $1,300 per ton) at a rate of
allowances for each ton of NOX emitted
based on the ratio of these cost
thresholds. For example, states with
emissions budgets established using
$3,400 per ton could use allowances at
a rate of approximately 2.5-to-1 in order
to align with the ratio of the relevant
cost thresholds. The EPA requests
comments on allowing the states to
trade with the proposed restrictions on
the use of allowances by sources in
states controlled using the more
stringent cost threshold.
The EPA is also seeking comment on
allowing trading without distinction
between the particular cost thresholds
for which an upwind state has
obligations to reduce transported
pollution, and subject only to the
constraints of the CSAPR assurance
provisions with no additional
restrictions. The EPA is also soliciting
comment on whether and how the
assurance provision penalty might be
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6. Compliance Deadlines
As discussed in sections II.A., III.B.,
and IV.A., the proposed rule would
require NOX reductions from sources
starting May 1, 2017, to ensure that
reductions are made as expeditiously as
practicable to assist downwind states’
attainment and maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The compliance
107 In the regulatory text revisions for this
proposal, the proposed limits discussed here are
described in terms of the ‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ of
an allowance. In the case of 2015 or 2016 vintage
allowances used for compliance in a control period
in 2017 or later, where 4 allowances would be
needed for each ton of emissions, each such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
in the other group, similar to the
existing separation between the CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2
programs.
D. Summary of Proposed Allowance
Surrender Ratios
As discussed in sections a. and b.
above, the EPA proposes that in this
updated rulemaking, EGUs would be
able to trade NOX ozone-season
emission allowances among units
within the state and across state
boundaries, with emissions and use of
allowances limited by the assurance
provisions. However, the EPA is
proposing to impose certain additional
limits on the use of allowances starting
in 2017 for EGUs in the 23 states with
updated budgets in this proposal. Table
VII–2 summarizes the limits on the
proposed use for CSAPR NOX ozoneseason allowances.107
deadline is coordinated with the
attainment deadline for the relevant
NAAQS and the proposed rule includes
provisions to assure that all necessary
reductions occur at sources within each
individual state.
In section VI above, the EPA explains
that this is an adequate and reasonable
time for sources to plan for compliance
and operate necessary controls.
For states for which EPA has already
established a FIP requiring their units to
participate in the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program because of
transport obligations under the 1997
ozone NAAQS, no CFR changes are
necessary to accommodate this
allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.25
tons per allowance (1⁄4 = 0.25). In the case of 2017
or later allowances from a state with an original
CSAPR budget used for compliance by a unit in a
state with an updated budget based on the 2008
ozone NAAQS, where 2.5 allowances would be
needed for each ton of emissions, each such
allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of 0.40
tons per allowance (1⁄2.5 = 0.40). In a case where one
allowance is needed for each ton of emissions, such
allowances would have a tonnage equivalent of one
ton per allowance. See proposed 40 CFR 97.524(f)
in the regulatory text for this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
EP03DE15.001</GPH>
increased in conjunction with this
approach.
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking
comment on separating compliance
between groups of upwind states under
each cost threshold, whereby the use of
NOX ozone-season emission allowances
from one group (e.g., sources in states
with allowances issued using the more
stringent cost threshold) would be
disallowed for compliance use by units
75749
75750
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
compliance deadline. The EPA proposes
to amend the regulatory text in 40 CFR
97.506(c)(3) to reflect the 2017 start of
compliance obligations for units in
states that were not previously subject
to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading
program (e.g., Kansas). The EPA also
proposes to amend various FIP
provisions in 40 CFR part 52 to indicate
the start and end of compliance
obligations under the FIPs for sources in
states added to the trading program
under this proposed rule (e.g., Kansas)
or removed from the trading program in
response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of
certain NOX ozone-season emissions
budgets (e.g., Florida and South
Carolina).
7. Monitoring and Reporting and the
Allowance Management System
Monitoring and reporting in
accordance with the provisions of 40
CFR part 75 are required for all units
subject to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading programs and would also be
required for all units covered under the
proposed transport rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS requirements. The EPA
proposes that the monitoring
certification deadline by which
monitors are installed and certified for
compliance use generally would be May
1, 2017, the beginning of the first
compliance period proposed in this
rule, with potentially later deadlines for
units that commence commercial
operation after July 1, 2016. Similarly,
the EPA proposes that the first calendar
quarter in which quarterly emission
reporting is required would generally be
the quarter including May 1, 2017.
These deadlines are analogous to the
current deadlines under CSAPR but are
delayed by two years to reflect the fact
that this rule’s initial implementation
year would be two years later than the
existing CSAPR programs’ initial
implementation year.
Under part 75, a unit has several
options for monitoring and reporting,
namely the use of a CEMS; an excepted
monitoring methodology based in part
on fuel flow metering for certain gas- or
oil-fired peaking units; low-mass
emissions monitoring for certain noncoal-fired, low emitting units; or an
alternative monitoring system approved
by the Administrator through a petition
process. In addition, sources can submit
petitions to the Administrator for
alternatives to specific CSAPR and part
75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. Each CEMS
must undergo rigorous initial
certification testing and periodic quality
assurance testing thereafter, including
the use of relative accuracy test audits
(RATAs) and 24-hour calibrations. In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
addition, when a monitoring system is
not operating properly, standard
substitute data procedures are applied
and result in a conservative estimate of
emissions for the period involved.
Further, part 75 requires electronic
submission of a quarterly emissions
report to the Administrator, and in a
format prescribed by the Administrator.
The report would contain all of the data
required concerning ozone season NOX
emissions.
Units currently subject to CSAPR NOX
ozone-season or CSAPR NOX annual
trading program requirements monitor
and report NOX emissions in accordance
with part 75, so most sources would not
have to make any changes to monitoring
and reporting practices. In fact, only
units in Kansas currently subject to the
CSAPR NOX annual trading program but
not the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program would need to start
newly reporting ozone season NOX mass
emissions. These emissions are already
measured under the annual program, so
the change would be a minor reporting
modification. Units in the following
states monitor and report NOX
emissions under the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program and would
continue to do so without change under
the CSAPR ozone update for the 2008
NAAQS: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
8. Recordation of Allowances
The EPA proposes to update the
deadlines by which EPA would record
allowances for the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program for the
compliance periods in the years from
2017 through 2022. The proposed new
dates would amend the recordation
deadlines in 40 CFR 97.521 as shown in
the proposed regulatory text
amendments at the end of this proposal.
The existing recordation provisions
require EPA to record either FIP-based
(i.e., governed by part 97) or SIP-based
allocations for 2017 and 2018 by July 1,
2016. The EPA proposes to delay this
deadline to December 1, 2016. The
extension would allow EPA to finalize
any changes to the state budgets for the
2017 compliance period before
recording 2017 allowances. This would
prevent the need to take back
allowances that were recorded under
existing budgets in cases where state
budgets are reduced. The extended
deadline would still allow allocations to
be recorded five months prior to the
start of the 2017 compliance period,
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
giving affected units time to make
compliance plans. Compliance true-up
for the 2017 ozone season occurs after
December 1, 2017, so affected sources
would have more than a year from the
extended recordation deadline to ensure
they hold enough allowances for 2017
ozone season compliance. The EPA is
taking comment on this new deadline
for 2017 and 2018 allowance allocation
recordation. The EPA is also taking
comment on whether the provision to
delay 2017 and 2018 allocation
recordation should be finalized ahead of
final action on this full proposal if this
proposal is not finalized before July 1,
2016.
The EPA is also proposing to extend
the existing deadlines for recording
CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances
for the 2019 and 2020 compliance
periods and for the 2021 and 2022
compliance periods each by one year, to
July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019,
respectively. The purpose of these
proposed deadline extensions is to
provide time for states to submit SIP
revisions to modify or replace the FIPs
proposed in this rulemaking on
schedules comparable to the schedules
for the SIP revision options that the
states have under the current CSAPR
regulations. The EPA seeks comment on
extending these recordation deadlines
as discussed.
C. Submitting a SIP
As noted earlier in this section VIII,
states may replace the FIP with a SIP at
any time if approved by the EPA.
‘‘Abbreviated’’ and ‘‘full’’ SIP options
continue to be available. An
‘‘abbreviated SIP’’ allows a state to
submit a SIP that would modify
allocation provisions in the NOX budget
trading program that is incorporated
into FIP to allow the state to substitute
its own allocation provisions. A second
approach, referred to as a full SIP,
allows a state to adopt a trading program
meeting certain requirements that
would allow sources in the state to
continue to use the EPA-administered
trading program through an approved
SIP, rather than a FIP. In addition, as
under CSAPR, EPA proposes to provide
states with an opportunity to adopt
state-determined allowance allocations
for existing units for the second
compliance period under this proposed
rule—in this case, the 2018 compliance
period—through streamlined SIP
revisions. See 76 FR 48208 at 48326–
48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional
discussion on full and abbreviated SIP
options and 40 CFR 52.38(b).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
1. 2018 SIP Option
As under CSAPR, the EPA proposes to
allow a state to submit a SIP revision
establishing allowance allocations for
existing units for the second year of the
new requirements, 2018, to replace the
FIP-based allocations. The process
would be the same as under the current
rule with deadlines shifted roughly 2
years—i.e., a state would submit a letter
to EPA by November 15, 2016 indicating
its intent to submit a complete SIP
revision by April 1, 2017. The SIP
would provide in an EPA-prescribed
format a list of existing units and their
allocations for the 2018 control period.
If a state does not submit a letter of
intent to submit a SIP revision, FIP
allocations would be recorded by
December 1, 2016. If a state submits a
timely letter of intent but fails to submit
a SIP revision, FIP allocations would be
recorded by April 1, 2017. If a state
submits a timely letter of intent
followed by a timely SIP revision that is
approved, the approved SIP allocations
would be recorded by October 1, 2017.
2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option
For the 2019 control period and later,
EPA proposes that the SIP submittal
deadline be delayed one year, until
December 1, 2017, from the current
deadline. The deadline to then submit
state allocations for 2019 and 2020
would be June 1, 2018 and the deadline
to record those allocations would be
July 1, 2018. Under the proposed new
deadlines, a state could submit a SIP
revision for 2021 and beyond control
periods by December 1, 2018, with state
allocations due June 1, 2019, and
allocation recordation by July 1, 2019.
For 2019 control period and later, SIPs
can be full or abbreviated SIPs. An
allocation methodology approved in an
abbreviated SIP submitted for 2017
under the existing CSAPR regulations
could also apply under the proposed
new rule in 2017 and 2018. See section
III of this preamble and 76 FR 48208 at
48326–48332 (August 8, 2011) for
additional discussion on full and
abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR
52.38(b).
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the
CSAPR Trading Program
For a transport SIP revision that does
not use the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program, EPA would evaluate
the transport SIP based on the particular
control strategies selected and whether
the strategies as a whole provide
adequate and enforceable provisions
ensuring that the emission reductions
will be achieved. The SIP revision at a
minimum should include the following
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
general elements: (1) A comprehensive
baseline 2017 statewide NOX emission
inventory (which includes growth and
existing control requirements), which
should be consistent with the 2017
emission inventory the EPA would use
when finalizing this rulemaking to
calculate the required state budget; (2) a
list and description of control measures
to satisfy the state emission reduction
obligation and a demonstration showing
when each measure would be in place
to meet the 2017 compliance date; (3)
fully-adopted state rules providing for
such NOX controls during the ozone
season; (4) for EGUs greater than 25
MWe and large boilers and combustion
turbines with a rated heat input capacity
of 250 mmBtu per hour or greater, Part
75 monitoring, and for other units,
monitoring and reporting procedures
sufficient to demonstrate that sources
are complying with the SIP; and (5) a
projected inventory demonstrating that
state measures along with federal
measures will achieve the necessary
emission reductions in time to meet the
2017 compliance deadline.108 The SIPs
must meet the requirements for public
hearing, be adopted by the appropriate
board or authority, and establish by a
practically enforceable regulation or
permit a schedule and date for each
affected source or source category to
achieve compliance. Once the state has
made a SIP submission, the EPA will
evaluate the submission(s) for
completeness. The EPA’s criteria for
determining completeness of a SIP
submission are codified at 40 CFR part
51, appendix V.
For further information on replacing a
FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the
final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326,
August 8, 2011). The EPA requests
comment on what types of additional
information and guidance would be
helpful and stands ready to assist states
in SIP development.
4. Submitting a SIP To Participate in
CSAPR for States Not Included in This
Proposal
The EPA believes that there could be
circumstances where a state that is not
obligated to reduce NOX emissions in
order to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of ozone
standards in another state (such as
Florida or South Carolina for purposes
of this proposal) may wish to participate
in the NOX ozone-season trading
program in order to serve a different
regulatory purpose. For example, the
state may have a pending request for
108 The EPA notes that the SIP is not required to
include modeling.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75751
redesignation of an area to attainment
that relies on participation in the
trading program as part of the state’s
demonstration that emissions will not
exceed certain levels, or the state may
wish to rely on participation in the
trading program for purposes of a SIP
revision to satisfy certain obligations
under the Regional Haze Rule. The EPA
seeks comment on whether the EPA
should revise the CSAPR regulations to
allow the EPA to approve a SIP revision
in which a state seeks to participate in
the NOX ozone-season trading program
for a purpose other than addressing
ozone transport obligations.
Further, the EPA seeks comment on
the conditions that should apply to any
such approval in order to ensure that
the state’s participation is consistent
with the trading program’s ability to
achieve the program’s objectives with
respect to interstate transport of ozone
pollution. The EPA believes that the
primary conditions for consideration in
this circumstance would be the level of
the state emissions budget and what, if
any, limitations would be placed on the
use of allowances issued to the sources
in that state by sources in other states.
The EPA specifically seeks comment
on whether a presumption of
approvability of such a SIP revision
should arise, without limitations on the
use of corresponding allowances for
compliance by sources within that state
or in other states, if the state would
adopt as part of the SIP revision a NOX
ozone-season emissions budget no
higher than the emissions budgets that
the EPA finalizes under this rule. For
example, based on this proposal, an
emissions budget that reflects EGU NOX
mitigation strategies represented by a
uniform cost of $1,300 per ton. The EPA
notes that such emissions budgets could
be developed using the data and
analysis used to establish the emissions
budgets for this rule.
EPA also specifically seeks comment
on whether a presumption of
approvability of such a SIP revision
should arise, with limitations on the use
of allowances issued to the state’s
sources analogous to the limitations
proposed for allowances issued to
Georgia’s units in this proposed rule, if
the state would adopt as part of the SIP
revision a NOX ozone-season emissions
budget no higher than the base case
ozone season NOX emissions that EPA
projected for the state in the analysis
used to establish the emissions budgets
for this proposed rule.
The EPA also specifically seeks
comment on whether, in the case of a
state previously subject to the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program (e.g.,
Florida or South Carolina), a
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75752
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
presumption of approvability of such a
SIP revision should arise at an
emissions level higher than the state’s
base case emissions in the analysis used
to establish the emissions budgets for
this proposed rule—for example, an
emissions level equal to the state’s
previously promulgated CSAPR
budget—subject to the imposition of
trading limitations on allowances issued
to the state’s units analogous to the
limitations proposed for allowances
issued to Georgia’s units in this
proposal.
Finally, the EPA also seeks comment
on whether a state whose allowances
would otherwise be subject to
limitations on use analogous to the
limitations proposed for allowances
issued to Georgia’s units in this
proposed rule could avoid those
limitations by adopting in a SIP revision
a more stringent budget reflecting
emission levels at higher dollar per ton
emission reduction costs comparable to
the dollar per ton emission reduction
costs used to establish the budgets for
other states in this proposed rule.
D. Title V Permitting
This proposed rule, like CSAPR, does
not establish any permitting
requirements independent of those
under title V of the CAA and the
regulations implementing title V, 40
CFR parts 70 and 71.109 All major
stationary sources of air pollution and
certain other sources are required to
apply for title V operating permits that
include emission limitations and other
conditions as necessary to assure
compliance with the applicable
requirements of the CAA, including the
requirements of the applicable State
Implementation Plan. CAA sections
502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a)
and 7661c(a). The ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ that must be addressed in
title V permits are defined in the title V
regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2
(definition of ‘‘applicable
requirement’’)).
The EPA anticipates that, given the
nature of the units subject to this
transport rule and given that many of
the units covered here are already
subject to CSAPR, most of the sources
at which the units are located are
already subject to title V permitting
requirements. For sources subject to title
V, the interstate transport requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would
be applicable to them under the final
FIPs will be ‘‘applicable requirements’’
under title V and therefore will need to
109 Part 70 addresses requirements for state title
V programs, and part 71 governs the federal title V
program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
be addressed in the title V permits. For
example, requirements concerning
designated representatives, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping, the
requirement to hold allowances
covering emissions, the assurance
provisions, and liability will be
‘‘applicable requirements’’ to be
addressed in the permits.
Title V of the CAA establishes the
basic requirements for state title V
permitting programs, including, among
other things, provisions governing
permit applications, permit content, and
permit revisions that address applicable
requirements under final FIPs in a
manner that provides the flexibility
necessary to implement market-based
programs such as the trading programs
established by CSAPR and updated by
this proposed ozone interstate transport
rule. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b).
In CSAPR, EPA established standard
requirements governing how sources
covered by the rule would comply with
title V and its regulations.110 40 CFR
97.506(d). Under this proposed rule,
EPA proposes that those same
requirements would continue to apply
to sources already in the CSAPR NOX
Ozone-season Trading Program and to
any newly covered sources that have
been added to address interstate
transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For
example, the title V regulations provide
that a permit issued under title V must
include ‘‘[a] provision stating that no
permit revision shall be required under
any approved . . . emissions trading
and other similar programs or processes
for changes that are provided for in the
permit.’’ 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8) and
71.6(a)(8). Consistent with these
provisions in the title V regulations, in
CSAPR, EPA included a provision
stating that no permit revision is
necessary for the allocation, holding,
deduction, or transfer of allowances. 40
CFR 97.506(d)(1). This provision is also
included in each title V permit for a
covered source. The EPA proposes to
maintain its approach under CSAPR
that allowances can be traded (or
allocated, held, or deducted) without a
revision to the title V permit of any of
the sources involved.
Similarly, the EPA is also proposing
to maintain that sources in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone-season Trading Program can
continue to use the title V minor
modification procedure to change their
approach for monitoring and reporting
emissions, in certain circumstances.
110 EPA also issued a guidance document and
template that includes instructions describing how
to incorporate the CSAPR applicable requirements
into a source’s title V permit. https://www.epa.gov/
airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_Title_V_Permit_
Guidance.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Specifically, sources may use the minor
modification procedure so long as the
new monitoring and reporting approach
is one of the prior-approved approaches
under CSAPR (i.e., approaches using a
continuous emission monitoring system,
an excepted monitoring system under
appendices D and E to part 75, a low
mass emissions excepted monitoring
methodology under 40 CFR 75.19, or an
alternative monitoring system under
subpart E of part 75), and the permit
already includes a description of the
new monitoring and reporting approach
to be used. See 40 CFR 97.506(d)(2); 40
CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 40 CFR
71.7(e)(1)(i)(B). As described in our
2015 guidance, we suggest in our
template that sources may comply with
this requirement by including a table of
all of the approved monitoring and
reporting approaches under the rule,
and the applicable requirements
governing each of those approaches.
Inclusion of the table in a source’s title
V permit therefore allows a covered unit
that seeks to change or add to their
chosen monitoring and recordkeeping
approach to easily comply with the
regulations governing the use of the title
V minor modification procedure.
Under CSAPR, in order to employ a
monitoring or reporting approach
different from the prior-approved
approaches discussed above, unit
owners and operators must submit
monitoring system certification
applications to the EPA establishing the
monitoring and reporting approach
actually to be used by the unit, or, if the
owners and operators choose to employ
an alternative monitoring system, to
submit petitions for that alternative to
the EPA. These applications and
petitions are subject to EPA review and
approval to ensure consistency in
monitoring and reporting among all
trading program participants. The EPA’s
responses to any petitions for alternative
monitoring systems or for alternatives to
specific monitoring or reporting
requirements are posted on the EPA’s
Web site.111 EPA proposes to maintain
the same approach in this proposed
rule.
Consistent with the EPA’s approach
under CSAPR, the applicable
requirements resulting from this
proposed FIP would be incorporated
into covered sources’ existing title V
permits either pursuant to the
provisions for reopening for cause (40
CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f)) or the
standard permit renewal provisions (40
111 https://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/part-75petition-responses.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)).112 For sources
newly subject to title V that will also be
covered sources under the final FIPs,
the initial title V permit issued pursuant
to 40 CFR 70.7(a) should address the
final FIP requirements.
As in CSAPR, the approach to title V
permitting under the proposed FIPs
imposes no independent permitting
requirements and should reduce the
burden on sources already required to
be permitted under title V and on
permitting authorities.
E. Relationship to Other Emission
Trading and Ozone Transport Programs
1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR 113
Annual Programs, Title IV Acid Rain
Program, NOX SIP Call, Section 176A
Petition, and Other State
Implementation Plans
a. CSAPR Annual Programs
Nothing in this proposal affects any
CSAPR NOX annual or CSAPR SO2
Group 1 or CSAPR SO2 Group 2
requirements. The CSAPR annual
requirements were premised on the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that are
not being addressed in this rulemaking.
The CSAPR NOX annual trading
program and the CSAPR SO2 Group 1
and Group 2 trading programs remain in
place and will continue to be
administered by the EPA.
The EPA acknowledges that, in
addition to the ozone budgets discussed
above, the D.C. Circuit has remanded for
reconsideration the CSAPR SO2 budgets
for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina,
and Texas. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d
at 138. This proposal does not address
the remand of these CSAPR phase 2 SO2
emissions budgets. The EPA intends to
address the remand of the phase 2 SO2
annual emissions budgets separately.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Title IV Interactions
This proposed rule if adopted would
not affect any Acid Rain Program
requirements. Any Title IV sources that
are subject to provisions of this
proposed rule would still need to
continue to comply with all Acid Rain
provisions. Acid Rain Program SO2 and
NOX requirements are established
independently in Title IV of the Clean
112 A permit is reopened for cause if any new
applicable requirements (such as those under a FIP)
become applicable to a covered source with a
remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If the
remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such
new applicable requirements will be added to the
permit during permit renewal. See 40 CFR
70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
113 The CSAPR Annual Programs are referred to
in regulations as the Transport Rule NOX Annual
Trading Program (40 CFR 97.401–97.435), the
Transport Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading Program (40
CFR 97.601–97.635) and the Transport Rule SO2
Group 2 Trading Program (40 CFR 97.701–97.735).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Air Act, and will continue to apply
independently of this proposed rule’s
provisions. Acid Rain sources will still
be required to comply with Title IV
requirements, including the requirement
to hold Title IV allowances to cover SO2
emissions at the end of a compliance
year.
c. NOX SIP Call Interactions
States affected by both the NOX SIP
Call and any final CSAPR ozone update
for the 2008 NAAQS will be required to
comply with the requirements of both
rules. This proposed rule requires NOX
ozone season emission reductions from
EGUs greater than 25 MW in nearly all
NOX SIP Call states and at levels greater
than required by the NOX SIP Call.
Therefore, this proposed rule would
satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP
Call for these large EGU units.
The NOX SIP Call states used the NOX
Budget Trading Program to comply with
the NOX SIP Call requirements for EGUs
serving a generator with a nameplate
capacity greater than 25 MW and large
non-EGUs with a maximum rated heat
input capacity greater than 250
MMBTU/hr. (In some states, EGUs
smaller than 25 MW were also part of
the NBP as a carryover from the Ozone
Transport Commission NOX Budget
Trading Program.) When the EPA
promulgated CAIR, it allowed states to
modify that program and include all
NOX Budget Trading Program units in
the CAIR NOX Ozone-season Trading
Program as a way to continue to meet
the requirements of the NOX SIP Call for
these sources.
In CSAPR, however, the EPA allowed
states to expand applicability of the
trading program to EGUs smaller than
25 MW but did not allow the expansion
of applicability to include large nonEGU sources. The reason for excluding
large non-EGU sources was largely that
emissions from these sources were
generally much lower than the budget
amount and there was concern that
surplus allowances created as a result of
an overestimation of baseline emissions
and subsequent shutdowns (since 1999
when the NOX SIP Call was
promulgated) would prevent needed
reductions by the EGUs to address
significant contribution to downwind
air quality impacts.
Since then, states have had to find
appropriate ways to continue to show
compliance with the NOX SIP Call,
particularly for large non-EGUs.114 Most
states that included such sources in
114 CSAPR generally satisfies NO SIP Call
X
requirements for EGUs in most affected states
because the CSAPR cap is lower than the EGU
portion of the NOX SIP Call emission levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75753
CAIR are still working to find suitable
solutions.115
Therefore, the EPA is taking comment
on whether to allow any NOX SIP Call
state affected by this proposed rule to
voluntarily submit a SIP revision at a
budget level that is environmentally
neutral to address the state’s NOX SIP
Call requirement for ozone season NOX
reductions. The SIP revision could
include a rule to expand the
applicability of the CSAPR NOX ozoneseason trading program to include all
NOX Budget Trading Program units.
Analysis shows that these units (mainly
large non-EGU boilers, combustion
turbines, and combined cycle units with
a maximum rated heat input capacity
greater than 250 mmBtu/hr) continue to
emit well below their portion of the
NOX SIP Call budget. In order to ensure
that the necessary amount of EGU
emission reductions occur for this
proposed rule, the corresponding state
ozone-season emissions budget amount
could be increased by the lesser of the
highest ozone season NOX emissions (in
the last 3–5 years) 116 from those units
or the relevant non-EGU budget under
the NOX SIP Call, and this small group
of non-EGUs could participate in the
CSAPR ozone-season trading program.
The environmental impact would be
neutral using this approach, and hourly
reporting of emissions under part 75
would continue. This approach would
address requests by states for help in
determining an appropriate way to
address the continuing NOX SIP Call
requirement as to non-EGU sources.
EPA proposes that if this option is
finalized that the variability limits
established for EGUs be unchanged as a
result of including these non-EGUs. The
assurance provisions would apply to
EGUs, and emissions from non-EGUs
would not affect the assurance levels.
The NOX SIP Call generally requires
that states choosing to rely on large
EGUs and large non-EGUs for meeting
NOX SIP Call emission reduction
requirements must establish a NOX mass
emissions cap on each source and
require part 75, subpart H monitoring.
As an alternative to source-by-source
NOX mass emission caps, a state may
impose NOX emission rate limits on
each source and use maximum
operating capacity for estimating NOX
mass emissions or may rely on other
requirements that the state demonstrates
to be equivalent to either the NOX mass
115 Affected sources continue to report ozone
season emissions using part 75 as required by the
NOX SIP Call and emissions in most states cannot
(or are not likely to) exceed NOX SIP Call non-EGU
budget levels.
116 EPA requests comment on the appropriate
time period for this determination.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75754
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
emission caps or the NOX emission rate
limits that assume maximum operating
capacity. Collectively, the caps or their
alternatives cannot exceed the portion
of the state budget for those sources. See
40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4). If the EPA
were to allow a state to expand the
applicability of this proposed rule to
include all the NOX Budget Trading
Program units in the CSAPR NOX
ozone-season trading program, the cap
requirement would be met through the
new budget and the monitoring
requirement would be met through the
trading program provisions, which
require part 75 monitoring. Whether this
option is finalized or not, the EPA will
work with states to ensure that NOX SIP
Call obligations continue to be met. The
EPA requests comment on the voluntary
inclusion of NOX SIP Call non-EGUs in
this 2008 ozone-season proposed rule.
d. CAA Section 176A Petition To
Expand the OTR
On December 9, 2013, the EPA
received a CAA section 176A petition
from the states of Connecticut,
Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode
Island, and Vermont. The petition was
amended on December 12, 2013 to add
the state of Pennsylvania as a
petitioning state. The petition requests
that the EPA add 8 states and the
remainder of the Commonwealth of
Virginia to the current Ozone Transport
Region that was established under CAA
section 184.117 The EPA will address
this petition at a future date.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. Other State Implementation Plans
In this proposal, the EPA has not
conducted any technical analysis to
determine whether compliance with the
proposed rule would satisfy other
requirements for EGUs in any
attainment or nonattainment areas (e.g.,
RACT or BART). For that reason, the
EPA is not now making determinations
nor establishing any presumptions that
compliance with the proposed rule
satisfies any other requirements for
EGUs. Based on analyses that states
conduct on a case-by-case basis, states
may be able to conclude that
compliance with the proposed rule for
certain EGUs fulfills other SIP
requirements.
117 The named 8 states are: Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio,
Tennessee, and West Virginia. Currently, the
portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the
OTR is in the consolidated metropolitan statistical
area that includes the District of Columbia and
northern Virginia.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
2. Other Federal Rulemakings
limited to: Reducing cost, addressing
reliability concerns, addressing
a. Clean Power Plan
concerns about stranded assets, and
On August 3, 2015, President Obama
facilitating the integration of meeting
and EPA announced the Clean Power
the emission guidelines and compliance
Plan—a historic and important action
by affected EGUs with other air quality
on emissions that contribute to climate
and pollution control obligations on the
change. The CPP reduces carbon
part of both states and affected EGUs.
pollution from the power sector. With
The EPA is also cognizant of the
strong but achievable standards for
potential influence of addressing
power plants, and customized goals for
interstate ozone transport on the CPP.
states to cut the carbon pollution (CO2)
As states and utilities undertake the
that is driving climate change, the Clean near- and longer-term planning that will
Power Plan (CPP) provides national
be needed for the CPP, they will have
consistency, accountability and a level
the opportunity to consider how
playing field while reflecting each
compliance with this proposed rule can
state’s energy mix.
anticipate, or be consistent with,
The Clean Air Act—under section
expected compliance strategies for the
111(d)—creates a partnership between
CPP. While some EGU NOX mitigation
EPA, states, tribes and U.S. territories—
strategies, most notably shifting
with EPA setting a goal and states and
generation from higher-NOX emitting
tribes choosing how they will meet it.
coal-fired units to lower NOX emitting
The CPP follows that approach. The
NGCC units, can potentially also reduce
CPP establishes interim and final CO2
CO2 emissions, the EGU emissions
emission performance rates and
statewide goals. States then develop and analysis performed for this interstate
transport action does not results in a
implement plans that ensure that the
notable difference in CO2 emissions.
power plants in their state—either
However, EPA’s results do not preclude
individually, together or in combination
states and utilities from considering
with other measures—achieve these
these programs together. And, as the
rates or goals. States will be required to
EPA has structured the interstate
submit a state plan, or an initial
transport obligations that would be
submittal with an extension request, by
September 6, 2016. Complete state plans established by this proposal as
requirements to limit aggregate affected
must be submitted no later than
EGU emissions and the EPA is not
September 6, 2018. The interim rates
proposing to enforce source-specific
and goals are assessed over the years
2022 to 2029 and the final CO2 emission emission reduction requirements, EGU
owners have the flexibility to plan for
performance rates, rate-based goals, or
compliance with the interstate ozone
mass-based goals are assessed for 2030
transport requirements in ways that are
and after.
Because the final deadline for states to consistent with state and EGU strategies
submit complete plans under the CPP is to reduce CO2 emissions for the Clean
September 2018 and because mandatory Power Plan.
With respect to concerns about
CPP reductions do not begin until the
118 in
interim period (i.e., starting in 2022), the potentially stranded investments
NOX control equipment, the EPA’s
EPA does not anticipate significant
budget-setting approach quantifies NOX
interactions with the CPP and the nearreductions from upgrading combustion
term (i.e., starting in 2017) ozone season
controls at coal-fired units. However,
EGU NOX emission reduction
CSAPR’s flexible compliance does not
requirements under this proposal.
require that specific NOX controls be
However the EPA notes that actions
installed at any specific facilities, and
taken to reduce CO2 emissions (e.g.,
deployment of zero-emitting generation) we would not expect such controls to be
installed on units that may not be
may also reduce ozone season NOX
economic to operate in the future.
emissions. To the extent that states or
electric utilities consider emission
b. 2015 Ozone Standard
reduction strategies to meet these two
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
separate requirements—CPP and
strengthened the ground-level ozone
interstate ozone transport—in a
NAAQS to 70 ppb, based on extensive
coordinated manner, they may find
scientific evidence about ozone’s effects
efficiency gains in that actions to meet
on public health and welfare. This
the CPP goals may also help meet
interstate ozone transport requirements. proposed rule to update CSAPR to
address interstate emissions transport
The EPA believes that timing
flexibility provided in the CPP offers
118 A potential stranded investment is an
significant benefits that allow states to
investment in an EGU NOX reduction strategy (e.g.,
develop plans that will help achieve a
combustion controls) for which the affected EGU
retires before the investment is fully depreciated.
number of goals, including, but not
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
is a separate and distinct regulatory
action and is not meant to address the
CAA’s good neighbor provision with
respect to the strengthened 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
The EPA is mindful of the need to
address ozone transport for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The statutory deadline
for the EPA to finalize area designations
is October 1, 2017. Further, good
neighbor SIPs from states are due on
October 1, 2018. The steps taken under
this proposal to reduce interstate ozone
transport, when finalized, will help
states attain and maintain the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Moreover, to facilitate
the implementation of the CAA good
neighbor provision the EPA intends to
provide information regarding steps 1
and 2 of the CSAPR framework in the
fall of 2016. In particular, the EPA
expects to conduct modeling necessary
to identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and identify the
upwind states that contribute
significantly to these receptors.
VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts
of the Proposed Rule
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits,
and impacts of compliance with the
proposed EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets that reflect uniform
NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see
proposed emissions budgets in table
VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed
compliance with other more and less
stringent alternative EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, reflecting
uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton
and $500 per ton, respectively (see
alternative emissions budgets in tables
VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the
impact of implementing these emissions
budgets to reduce interstate transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More
75755
details for this assessment can be found
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
docket for this proposed rule.
The EPA notes that its analysis of the
regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the
proposal and more and less stringent
alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in
part because the EPA proposes to
implement the proposed EGU NOX
emissions budgets via a regional NOX
ozone-season allowance trading
program. This implementation approach
provides utilities with the flexibility to
determine their own compliance path.
The EPA’s assessment develops and
analyzes one possible scenario for
implementing the NOX budgets
proposed by this action and one
possible scenario for implementing the
more and less stringent alternatives.
Table VIII.1 provides the projected
2017 EGU emissions reductions for the
evaluated regulatory control scenarios.
TABLE VIII.1—PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS OF NOX, SO2, AND CO2 WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS
BUDGETS AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[TONS] 1
Proposal
NOX (annual) ...............................................................................................................................
NOX (ozone season) ....................................................................................................................
SO2 (annual) ................................................................................................................................
CO2 (annual) ................................................................................................................................
1 NO
X
89,969
84,856
383
610,092
More stringent
alternative
Less stringent
alternative
92,582
83,680
425
614,385
23,686
25,051
301
719,760
and SO2 emissions are reported in English (short) tons; CO2 is reported in metric tons.
The EPA estimates the costs
associated with compliance with the
illustrative proposed regulatory control
alternative to be approximately $93
million annually. These costs represent
the private compliance cost of reducing
NOX emissions to comply with the
proposal and include monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
Table VIII.2 provides the estimated costs
for the evaluated regulatory control
scenarios, including the proposal and
more and less stringent alternatives.
Estimates are in 2011 dollars.
TABLE VIII.2—COST ESTIMATES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED NOX EMISSIONS BUDGETS AND MORE AND LESS
STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[2011]$ 1
Proposal
Costs ............................................................................................................................................
$93
More stringent
alternative
Less stringent
alternative
$96
$4.7
1 Levelized
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
annualized costs over the period 2016 through 2040, discounted using the 4.77 discount rate used in IPM’s objective function of
minimizing the net present value of the stream of total costs of electricity generation.
In this analysis, the EPA monetized
the estimated benefits associated with
reducing population exposure to ozone
and PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased
emissions of CO2, but was unable to
monetize the co-benefits associated with
reducing exposure to mercury, carbon
monoxide, and NO2, as well as
ecosystem effects and visibility
impairment. In addition, the EPA
expects positive health and welfare
impacts associated with reduced levels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
of hydrogen chloride, but could not
quantify these impacts. Among the
benefits it could quantify, the EPA
estimated combinations of health
benefits at discount rates of 3 percent
and 7 percent (as recommended by the
EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014]
and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003])
and climate co-benefits at discount rates
of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and
3 percent (95th percentile) (as
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recommended by the interagency
working group). The EPA estimates the
monetized ozone-related benefits 119 of
the proposal to be $490 million to $790
million (2011$) in 2017 and the
119 The ozone-related health benefits range is
based on applying different adult mortality
functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2008)).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75756
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5-related co-benefits 120 of the
proposal to be $190 million to $430
million (2011$) using a 3% discount
rate and $170 million to $380 million
(2011$) using a 7% discount rate.
Further, the EPA estimates CO2-related
co-benefits of $6.5 to $66 million
(2011$). Additional details on this
analysis are provided in the RIA for this
proposal. Tables VIII.3 and VIII.5
summarize the quantified monetized
human health and climate benefits of
the proposal and the more and less
stringent control alternatives. Table
VIII.4 summarizes the estimated
avoided ozone- and PM2.5-related health
incidences for the proposal and the
more and less stringent control
alternatives.
TABLE VIII.3—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND
MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[Millions of 2011]$ 1
More stringent
alternative
Proposal
NOX (as ozone) ...............................................................................................................
NOX (as PM2.5):
3% Discount Rate .....................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate .....................................................................................................
Total:
3% Discount Rate .....................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate .....................................................................................................
Less stringent
alternative
$490 to $790
$500 to $820
$140 to $220
190 to 430
170 to 380
190 to 440
170 to 390
49 to 110
45 to 100
670 to 1,200
650 to 1,200
690 to 1,300
670 to 1,200
190 to 340
180 to 330
1 The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al.
(2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
TABLE VIII.4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AVOIDED OZONE-RELATED AND PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH INCIDENCES FROM
PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES1
More stringent
alternative
Less stringent
alternative
48
81
50
83
14
23
79
320
93,000
240,000
77,000
81
330
95,000
240,000
79,000
22
90
26,000
67,000
22,000
Proposal
Ozone-Related Health Effects
Avoided Premature Mortality:
Smith et al. (2009) (all ages) ................................................................................................
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) (all ages) ............................................................................
Avoided Morbidity:
Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (ages > 65) .........................................................
Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) ......................................................................
Asthma exacerbation (ages 6–18) .......................................................................................
Minor restricted-activity days (ages 18–65) .........................................................................
School loss days (ages 5–17) ..............................................................................................
PM2.5-Rrelated Health Effects
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Avoided Premature Mortality:
Krewski et al. (2009) (adult) .................................................................................................
Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult) .................................................................................................
Woodruff et al. (1997) (infant) ..............................................................................................
Avoided Morbidity:
Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) ............................................................
Acute bronchitis (age 8–12) .................................................................................................
Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7–14) .............................................................................
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9–11) ...........................................................
Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) ...........................................................................
Lost work days (age 18–65) .................................................................................................
Asthma exacerbation (age 6–18) .........................................................................................
Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) .........................................................................
Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age > 18) .................................................................
Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age >18) ......................................................................................
Peters et al. (2001) ...............................................................................................................
21
48
<1
22
50
<1
6
13
<1
12
31
390
560
16,000
2,700
580
6
8
........................
25
12
32
400
570
16,000
2,700
600
7
8
........................
26
3
8
100
150
4,200
700
150
2
2
........................
7
Pooled estimate of 4 studies .........................................................................................
3
3
1
1 All
estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures.
120 The PM -related health co-benefits range is
2.5
based on applying different adult mortality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et
al. (2012)).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
75757
TABLE VIII.5—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR LESS
STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[Millions of 2011$] 1
Discount rate and statistic
Proposal
5% (average) ...............................................................................................................................
3 (average) ..................................................................................................................................
2.5 (average) ...............................................................................................................................
3 (95th percentile) ........................................................................................................................
$6.5
23
35
66
More stringent
alternative
Less stringent
alternative
$6.5
23
35
66
$7.6
27
41
78
1 The social cost of carbon (SC–CO ) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO values represent only a partial accounting
2
2
of climate impacts.
The EPA combined this information
to perform a benefit-cost analysis for
this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and
for the more and less stringent
alternatives—shown in the RIA in the
docket for this proposed rule).
TABLE VIII.6—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S.
[Millions of 2011$]
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Climate Co-Benefits ..................................................................................
Air Quality Health .....................................................................................
Total Benefits ............................................................................................
Annualized ................................................................................................
Net Benefits ..............................................................................................
Non-Monetized .........................................................................................
There are additional important
benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. Due to current data and
modeling limitations, our estimates of
the co-benefits from reducing CO2
emissions do not include important
impacts like ocean acidification or
potential tipping points in natural or
managed ecosystems. Unquantified
benefits also include climate co-benefits
from reducing emissions of non-CO2
GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane)
and co-benefits from reducing direct
exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous
air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as
from reducing ecosystem effects and
visibility impairment. Based upon the
foregoing discussion, it remains clear
that the benefits of this proposed action
are substantial, and far exceed the costs.
Additional details on benefits, costs,
and net benefits estimates are provided
in the RIA for this proposal.
For this proposed rule, the EPA
analyzed the costs to the electric power
sector using IPM. The IPM is a dynamic
linear programming model that can be
used to examine the economic impacts
of air pollution control policies for SO2
and NOX throughout the contiguous
United States for the entire power
system. Documentation for IPM can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking
or at www.epa.gov/
powersectormodeling.
The EPA provides a qualitative
assessment of economic impacts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
$23.
670 to 1200.
700 to 1200.
93.
600 to 1100.
Non-monetized climate benefits.
Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2.
Reductions in mercury deposition.
Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in Visibility impairment.
associated with electricity price changes
to consumers that may result from this
proposed rule. This assessment can be
found in the RIA for this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 directs federal
agencies to consider the effect of
regulations on job creation and
employment. According to the
Executive Order, ‘‘our regulatory system
must protect public health, welfare,
safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation. It must be based on the best
available science’’ (Executive Order
13563, 2011). Although standard
benefit-cost analyses have not typically
included a separate analysis of
regulation-induced employment
impacts, employment impacts are of
particular concern and questions may
arise about their existence and
magnitude.
States have the responsibility and
flexibility to implement policies and
practices as part of developing SIPs for
compliance with the emissions budgets
found in this proposed rule. Given the
wide range of approaches that may be
used and industries that could be
affected, quantifying the associated
employment impacts is difficult.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to
the Regulatory Text for the CSAPR FIPs
and CSAPR Trading Programs
This section describes proposed
amendments to the regulatory text in the
CFR for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program
related to the findings and remedy
discussed throughout this preamble.
This section also describes other minor
proposed corrections to the existing CFR
text for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR
trading programs more generally.
The proposed regulatory text
amendments related to the CSAPR FIPs
and the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season
Trading Program would be made in
parts 52, 78, and 97 of title 40 of the
CFR. Proposed changes to update the
list of states that would be subject to
FIPs to address obligations related to
transported ozone pollution are in
§§ 52.38(b)(2) (summarizing all states
subject to FIPs), 52.540 (ending FIP for
Florida), 52.882 (establishing FIP for
Kansas), and 52.2140 (ending FIP for
South Carolina). Section 97.510
contains the proposed changes
establishing or revising the amounts of
NOX Ozone-Season trading budgets,
new unit set-asides (NUSAs), Indian
country NUSAs, and variability limits
for states whose sources participate in
the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Trading
Program. Additional proposed changes
to accommodate trading program
participation by sources whose coverage
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75758
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
starts in different years are in
§§ 97.506(c)(3) (compliance deadlines),
97.512 (NUSA allowance allocation
procedures), 97.530(b) (monitor
certification deadlines), and 97.534(d)
(reporting deadlines).
Proposed changes to § 52.38(b)(3)
through (5) would update states’ options
to submit SIP revisions which, upon
approval by the EPA, would modify
certain CSAPR trading program
provisions as applied to those states or
replace the states’ FIPs with SIPs—
options that correspond closely to
states’ SIP revision options under
CSAPR as initially promulgated.
Proposed changes in § 97.521
(allowance recordation) delay the
deadlines for recording CSAPR NOX
Ozone-Season allowances for the
control periods in 2018 through 2022 in
order to coordinate with the proposed
updated submission deadlines for the
optional SIP revisions. A similar
proposed delay in the deadline for
recording allowances for the control
period in 2017 would provide time to
finalize this rulemaking and would
thereby allow the EPA to record
allocations of 2017 allowances based on
the final revised budgets instead of
recording allocations based on existing
budgets that are proposed to be
superseded.
The proposed limitations on the use
of emission allowances issued for a
compliance period before 2017 or from
the state NOX Ozone-Season trading
budget for Georgia are implemented by
redefining sources’ obligations under
the trading program in terms of
‘‘tonnage equivalents’’ of allowances
rather than in terms of nominal
quantities of allowances. Section 97.502
contains a proposed new definition of
‘‘tonnage equivalent’’ and related
proposed modifications to the
definitions of ‘‘CSAPR NOX OzoneSeason allowance’’ and ‘‘CSAPR NOX
Ozone-Season emissions limitation.’’ A
new § 97.524(f) sets out the proposed
procedures for determining the tonnage
equivalent of an allowance. Additional
proposed changes to reflect the use of
allowances based on their tonnage
equivalents (rather than their nominal
numbers) to meet various obligations are
contained in §§ 97.506(c) (standard
requirements relating to NOX
emissions), 97.511(c) (corrections of
incorrect allowance allocations), 97.524
(compliance with emissions limitations
and excess emissions provisions), and
97.525 (compliance with assurance
provisions). A proposed change to § 78.1
would make EPA’s determinations of
the tonnage equivalents of particular
allowance holdings subject to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
administrative appeal procedures set
forth in part 78.
In addition to the proposed CFR
changes described above, this proposal
also includes other minor amendments
throughout the sections of parts 52, 78,
and 97 implementing CSAPR, including
sections implementing CSAPR’s other
three emissions trading programs. The
most common category of these minor
changes consists of proposed
corrections to cross-references. Some
cross-references would change as a
result of this proposal and corrections of
those cross-references are therefore
related to the changes described above,
while other cross-references as
originally published indicated incorrect
locations because of typographical
errors or indicated correct locations but
did not use the correct CFR format. In
virtually all cases, the intended correct
cross-reference can be determined from
context, but the corrections clarify the
regulations.
Besides the proposed corrections to
cross-references, most of the remaining
proposed corrections address other
typographical errors. However, a small
number of the proposed CFR changes
correct errors that are not crossreferences or obviously typographical
errors. While the EPA views all of these
proposed corrections as
noncontroversial, a few merit a short
explanation.
First, the phrase ‘‘with regard to the
State’’ or ‘‘the State and’’ would be
added in a number of locations in
§§ 52.38 and 52.39 where it was
inadvertently omitted. The added
phrase clarifies that when the EPA
approves a state’s SIP revision as
modifying or replacing provisions in a
CSAPR trading program, the
modification or replacement is effective
only with regard to that particular state.
Correcting the omissions of these
phrases would make the language
concerning SIP revisions consistent for
all the types of SIP revisions under all
the CSAPR trading programs.
Second, the phrase ‘‘in part’’ would
be removed from the existing FIP
language in various sections of part 52
for certain states with Indian country to
clarify that in order to replace a CSAPR
FIP affecting the sources in these states,
a SIP revision must fully, not ‘‘in part,’’
correct the SIP deficiency identified by
the EPA as the basis for the FIP. The
intended purpose of the words ‘‘in
part’’—specifically, to indicate that
approval of a state’s SIP revision would
not relieve any sources in Indian
country within the borders of the state
from obligations under the FIP—is
already served by other language in
those FIPs. The proposed corrections
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would make the language in these
CSAPR FIPs consistent with the FIP
language for the remaining CSAPR FIPs
that address states with Indian country.
Analogous proposed changes to the
general CSAPR FIP language in
§§ 52.38(a)(5) and (6) and (b)(5) and (6)
and 52.39(f), (i), and (j) would remove
the phrase ‘‘in whole or in part’’
(referencing states without Indian
country and states with Indian country,
respectively) while adding language
distinguishing the effect that the EPA’s
approval of a SIP revision would have
on sources in the state from the lack of
effect on any sources in Indian country
within the borders of the state.
Third, language would be added to
§ 78.1 clarifying that determinations by
the EPA Administrator under the
CSAPR trading programs that are subject
to the part 78 administrative appeal
procedures are subject to those
procedures whether the source in
question participates in a CSAPR
trading program under a FIP or under an
approved SIP revision. This approach is
consistent with the approach taken
under CAIR FIPs and SIPs and with the
EPA’s intent in CSAPR, as evidenced by
the lack of any proposal or discussion
in the CSAPR rulemaking regarding
deviation from the historical approach.
This approach is also consistent with
provisions in §§ 52.38 and 52.39
prohibiting approvable SIP revisions
from altering certain provisions of the
CSAPR trading programs, including the
provisions specifying that
administrative appeal procedures for
determinations of the EPA
Administrator under the trading
programs are set forth in part 78.
Fourth, the phrase ‘‘steam turbine
generator’’ would be changed to
‘‘generator’’ in the list of required
equipment in the definition of a
‘‘cogeneration system’’ in §§ 97.402,
97.502, 97.602, and 97.702. Absent this
correction, a combustion turbine in a
facility that uses the combustion turbine
in combination with an electricity
generator and heat recovery steam
generator, but no steam turbine, to
produce electricity and useful thermal
energy would not meet the definition of
a ‘‘cogeneration unit.’’ The proposed
correction would clarify that a
combustion turbine in such a facility
should be able to qualify as a
‘‘cogeneration unit’’ (assuming it meets
other relevant criteria) under the CSAPR
trading programs, as it could under the
CAIR trading programs. The consistency
of this approach with the EPA’s intent
in the CSAPR rulemaking is evidenced
by the lack of any proposal or
discussion in that rulemaking regarding
the concept of narrowing the set of
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
facilities qualifying for an applicability
exemption as cogeneration units. To the
contrary, as discussed in the preamble
to the CSAPR proposal (75 FR 45307,
August 2, 2010), the definition of
‘‘cogeneration system’’ was created in
CSAPR to potentially broaden the set of
facilities qualifying for the exemption,
specifically by facilitating qualification
as ‘‘cogeneration units’’ for certain units
that might not meet the required levels
of efficiency on an individual basis but
that operate as components of multiunit ‘‘cogeneration systems’’ that do
meet the required levels of efficiency.
Fifth, the deadline for recording
certain allowance allocations under
§§ 97.421(j), 97.521(j), 97.621(j), and
97.721(j) would be changed from the
‘‘date on which’’ the EPA receives the
necessary allocation information to the
date ‘‘15 days after the date on which’’
the EPA receives the information. The
EPA’s lack of intention in the CSAPR
rulemaking to establish the deadline as
defined prior to the correction is
evidenced by the impracticability of
complying with such a deadline.
Sixth, a proposed change to a
description of a required notice under
the assurance provisions in
§§ 97.425(b)(2)(iii)(B),
97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.625(b)(2)(iii)(B),
and 97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B) would modify
the phrase ‘‘any adjustments’’ to the
phrase ‘‘calculations incorporating any
adjustments’’ in order to clarify that the
required notice will identify not only
any adjustments made to previously
noticed calculations, but also the
complete calculations with (or without)
such adjustments. The intended
meaning is clear from the subsequent
provisions that use this notice as the
point of reference for the complete
calculations used in the succeeding
administrative procedures.
Finally, the EPA notes that the
proposed amendments include updating
the nomenclature in the CFR from its
name as initially proposed—‘‘Transport
Rule’’ or ‘‘TR’’—to its name as
finalized—‘‘Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule’’ or ‘‘CSAPR.’’ This update is
intended to reduce confusion and
simplify communications regarding the
regulations by allowing a single name to
be used in all contexts.
The EPA invites comment on the
proposed regulatory text amendments
described above and shown at the end
of this notice.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is an economically
significant regulatory action that was
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA
prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this
action. This analysis, which is
contained in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Proposed Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008
Ozone NAAQS’’ [EPA–452/R–15–009],
is available in the docket and is briefly
summarized in section VIII of this
preamble.
Consistent with Executive Orders
12866 and 13563, the EPA estimated the
costs and benefits for three regulatory
control alternatives: The proposed EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets
and more and less stringent alternatives.
This proposed action would reduce
ozone season NOX emissions from EGUs
in 23 eastern states. Actions taken to
comply with the proposed EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets would
also reduce emissions of other criteria
air pollution and hazardous air
pollution emissions, including annual
NOX, and CO2. The benefits associated
with these co-pollutant reductions are
referred to as co-benefits, as these
reductions are not the primary objective
of this proposed rule.
The RIA for this proposal analyzed
illustrative compliance approaches for
implementing the proposed FIPs. This
proposal would establish EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets for 23
states and implement these budgets via
the existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season
allowance trading program.
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits,
and impacts of implementing the
proposed EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets that reflect uniform
NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see
proposed emissions budgets in table
VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed
implementation of other more and less
stringent alternative EGU NOX ozoneseason emissions budgets, reflecting
uniform NOX costs of $3,400 per ton
and $500 per ton, respectively (see
alternative emissions budgets in tables
VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA evaluated the
impact of implementing these emissions
budgets to reduce interstate transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More
details for this assessment can be found
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
docket for this proposed rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75759
The EPA notes that its analysis of the
regulatory control scenarios (i.e., the
proposal and more and less stringent
alternatives) is illustrative in nature, in
part because the EPA proposes to
implement the proposed EGU NOX
emissions budgets via a regional NOX
ozone-season allowance trading
program. This implementation approach
provides utilities with the flexibility to
determine their own compliance path.
The EPA’s assessment develops and
analyzes one possible scenario for
implementing the NOX budgets
proposed by this action and one
possible scenario for implementing the
more and less stringent alternatives.
The EPA estimates the costs
associated with compliance with the
illustrative proposed regulatory control
alternative to be approximately $93
million (2011$) annually. These costs
represent the private compliance cost of
reducing NOX emissions to comply with
the proposal.
In this analysis, the EPA monetized
the estimated benefits associated with
the reduced exposure to ozone and
PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased
emissions of CO2, but was unable to
monetize the co-benefits associated with
reducing exposure to mercury, carbon
monoxide, and NO2, as well as
ecosystem effects and visibility
impairment. In addition, there are
expected to be unquantified health and
welfare impacts associated with changes
in hydrogen chloride. Specifically, the
EPA estimated combinations of health
benefits at discount rates of 3 percent
and 7 percent (as recommended by the
EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014]
and OMB’s Circular A–4 [OMB, 2003])
and climate co-benefits at discount rates
of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and
3 percent (95th percentile) (as
recommended by the interagency
working group). The EPA estimates the
monetized ozone-related benefits 121 of
the proposal to be $490 million to $790
million (2011$) in 2017 and the PM2.5related co-benefits 122 of the proposal to
be $190 million to $430 million (2011$)
using a 3% discount rate and $170
million to $380 million (2011$) using a
7% discount rate. Further, the EPA
estimates CO2-related co-benefits of $6.5
to $66 million (2011$). Additional
details on this analysis are provided in
the RIA for this proposal. Tables X.A–
121 The ozone-related health benefits range is
based on applying different adult mortality
functions (i.e., Smith et al. (2009) and Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2008)).
122 The PM -related health co-benefits range is
2.5
based on applying different adult mortality
functions (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) and Lepeule et
al. (2012)).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75760
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
1, X.A–2, and X.A–3 summarize the
quantified human health and climate
benefits and the costs of the proposal
and the more and less stringent control
alternatives.
TABLE X.A–1—ESTIMATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF PROJECTED 2017 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND
MORE OR LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[Millions of 2011$] 1
Proposal
NOX (as ozone) ..................................................
NOX (as PM2.5)
3% Discount Rate .......................................
7% Discount Rate .......................................
Total
3% Discount Rate .......................................
7% Discount Rate .......................................
More stringent
Less stringent
$490 to $790 ..........................
$500 to $820 ..........................
$140 to $220
$190 to $430 ..........................
$170 to $380 ..........................
$190 to $440 ..........................
$170 to $390 ..........................
$49 to $110.
$45 to $100.
$670 to $1,200 .......................
$650 to $1,200 .......................
$690 to $1,300 .......................
$670 to $1,200 .......................
$190 to $340.
$180 to $330.
1 The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al.
(2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
TABLE X.A–2—ESTIMATED GLOBAL CLIMATE CO-BENEFITS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND MORE OR
LESS STRINGENT ALTERNATIVES
[Millions of 2011$] 1
Discount rate and statistic
More
stringent
Proposal
5% (average) .........................................................................................................................
3% (average) .........................................................................................................................
2.5% (average) ......................................................................................................................
3% (95th percentile) ..............................................................................................................
$6.5
23
35
66
$6.5
23
35
66
Less
stringent
$7.6
27
41
78
1 The social cost of carbon (SC–CO ) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC–CO values represent only a partial accounting
2
2
of climate impacts.
The EPA combined this information
to perform a benefit-cost analysis for
this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and
for the more and less stringent
alternatives—shown in the RIA in the
docket for this proposed rule).
TABLE X.A–3—TOTAL COSTS, TOTAL MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL IN 2017 FOR U.S.
[Millions of 2011$]
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Climate Co-Benefits ..................................................................................
Air Quality Health Benefits .......................................................................
Total Benefits ............................................................................................
Annualized Costs ......................................................................................
Compliance Costs ....................................................................................
Net Benefits ..............................................................................................
Non-Monetized Benefits ...........................................................................
There are additional important
benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. Due to current data and
modeling limitations, our estimates of
the co-benefits from reducing CO2
emissions do not include important
impacts like ocean acidification or
potential tipping points in natural or
managed ecosystems. Unquantified
benefits also include climate co-benefits
from reducing emissions of non-CO2
GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane)
and co-benefits from reducing direct
exposure to SO2, NOX, and hazardous
air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
$23.
$670 to $1200.
$700 to $1200.
$93.
$10.
$600 to $1100.
Non-monetized climate benefits.
Reductions in exposure to ambient NO2 and SO2.
Reductions in mercury deposition.
Ecosystem benefits assoc. with reductions in emissions of NOX, SO2,
and PM.
Visibility impairment.
from reducing ecosystem effects and
visibility impairment. Based upon the
foregoing discussion, it remains clear
that the benefits of this proposed action
are substantial, and far exceed the costs.
Additional details on benefits, costs,
and net benefits estimates are provided
in the RIA for this proposal.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned
EPA ICR number 2391.04. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
proposed rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The information generated by
information collection activities under
CSAPR is used by the EPA to ensure
that affected facilities comply with the
emission limits and other requirements.
Records and reports are necessary to
enable EPA or states to identify affected
facilities that may not be in compliance
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
with the requirements. The
recordkeeping requirements require
only the specific information needed to
determine compliance. These
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are established pursuant
to CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and (c) and
301(a) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D) and (c)
and 7601(a)) and are specifically
authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414). Reported data may also be
used for other regulatory and
programmatic purposes. All information
submitted to the EPA for which a claim
of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to EPA policies
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B,
Confidentiality of Business Information.
All of the EGUs that would be subject
to changed information collection
requirements under this proposed rule
are already subject to information
collection requirements under CSAPR.
Most of these EGUs also are already
subject to information collection
requirements under the Acid Rain
Program (ARP) established under Title
IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. Both CSAPR and the ARP
have existing approved ICRs: EPA ICR
Number 2391.03/OMB Control Number
2060–0667 (CSAPR) and EPA ICR
Number 1633.16/OMB Control Number
2060–0258 (ARP). The burden and costs
of the information collection
requirements covered under the CSAPR
ICR are estimated as incremental to the
information collection requirements
covered under the ARP ICR. Most of the
information used to estimate burden
and costs in this ICR was developed for
the existing CSAPR and ARP ICRs.
This proposed rule would change the
universe of sources subject to certain
information collection requirements
under CSAPR but would not change the
substance of any CSAPR information
collection requirements. The burden
and costs associated with the proposed
changes in the reporting universe are
estimated as reductions from the burden
and costs under the existing CSAPR
ICR. (This proposed rule would not
change any source’s information
collection requirements with respect to
the ARP.) The EPA intends to
incorporate the burden and costs
associated with the proposed changes in
the reporting universe under this
rulemaking into the next renewal of the
CSAPR ICR.
Respondents/affected entities: Entities
potentially affected by this proposed
action are EGUs in the states of Florida,
Kansas, and South Carolina that meet
the applicability criteria for the CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program in
40 CFR 97.404.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a)
of the Clean Air Act).
Estimated number of respondents:
116 sources in Florida, Kansas, and
South Carolina with one or more EGUs.
Frequency of response: Quarterly,
occasionally.
Total estimated burden: Reduction of
14,064 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: Reduction of
$1,472,047 (per year), includes
reduction of $450,951 operation and
maintenance costs.
The burden and cost estimates above
reflect the reduction in burden and cost
for Florida sources with EGUs that
would no longer be required to report
NOX mass emissions and heat input
data for the ozone season to the EPA
under the proposed rule and that are not
subject to similar information collection
requirements under the Acid Rain
Program. Because these EGUs would no
longer need to collect NOX emissions or
heat input data under 40 CFR part 75,
the estimates above also reflect the
reduction in burden and cost to collect
and quality assure these data and to
maintain the associated monitoring
equipment.
The EPA estimates that the proposed
rule would cause no change in
information collection burden or cost
for EGUs in Kansas that would be
required to report NOX mass emissions
and heat input data for the ozone season
to the EPA or for EGUs in South
Carolina that would no longer be
required to report NOX emissions and
heat input data for the ozone season to
the EPA. The EGUs in both Kansas and
South Carolina already are and would
remain subject to requirements to report
NOX mass emissions and heat input
data for the entire year to the EPA under
the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program, and the requirements related
to ozone season reporting are a subset of
the requirements related to annual
reporting. Similarly, the EPA estimates
that the proposed rule would cause no
change in information collection burden
or cost for EGUs in Florida that are
subject to the Acid Rain Program
because of the close similarity between
the information collection requirements
under CSAPR and under the Acid Rain
Program.
More information on the ICR analysis
is included in the docket for this rule.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75761
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. You
may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to oria_submissions@
omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for
the EPA. Because OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt,
OMB must receive comments no later
than January 4, 2016. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule. The information
collection requirements in the proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to
OMB under the PRA. The information
collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information collection activities in
this proposed rule include monitoring
and the maintenance of records.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities
subject to the requirements of this
action are small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
The EPA has lessened the impacts for
small entities by excluding all units
smaller than 25 MWe. This exclusion, in
addition to the exemptions for
cogeneration units and solid waste
incineration units, eliminates the
burden of higher costs for a substantial
number of small entities located in the
23 states for which the EPA is proposing
FIPs.
Within these states, the EPA
identified a total of 318 potentially
affected EGUs (i.e., greater than 25
MWe) warranting examination in its
RFA analysis. Of these, EPA identified
16 potentially affected EGUs that are
owned by 7 entities that met the Small
Business Administration’s criteria for
identifying small entities. The EPA
estimated the annualized net
compliance cost to these 7 small entities
to be approximately ¥$38.3 million in
2017, or savings of $38.3 million. The
fact that the net compliance costs for all
entities are actually net savings does not
mean that each small entity would
benefit from the proposal to update
CSAPR. The net savings are driven by
entities that are able to increase their
revenues by increasing generation. Of
the 7 small entities considered in this
analysis, 1 entity may experience
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75762
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
compliance costs greater than 1 or 3
percent of generation revenues in 2017.
Since this entity is not projected to
operate in the base case, we are unable
to compare the estimated compliance
costs to base case generation revenues.
However, we note that this entity is
located in a cost of service market,
where typically we expect entities
should be able to recover all of their
costs of complying with the proposal.
EPA has concluded that there is no
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (No
SISNOSE) for this rule. Details of this
analysis are presented in the RIA, which
is in the public docket.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
However, the EPA analyzed the
economic impacts of the proposal on
government entities. According to EPA’s
analysis, the total net economic impact
on government owned entities (stateand municipality-owned utilities and
subdivisions) is expected to be negative
(i.e., cost savings) in 2014. Note that we
expect the proposal to potentially have
an impact on only one category of
government-owned entities
(municipality-owned entities). This
analysis does not examine potential
indirect economic impacts associated
with the proposal, such as employment
effects in industries providing fuel and
pollution control equipment, or the
potential effects of electricity price
increases on government entities. For
more information on the estimated
impact on government entities, refer to
the RIA, which is in the public docket.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action has tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law.
This action proposes to implement
EGU NOX ozone season emissions
reductions in 23 eastern states.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
However, at this time, none of the
existing or planned EGUs affected by
this proposed rule are owned by tribes
or located in Indian country. This action
may have tribal implications if a new
affected EGU is built in Indian country.
Additionally, tribes have a vested
interest in how this proposed rule
would affect air quality.
In developing CSAPR, which was
promulgated on July 6, 2011 to address
interstate transport of ozone pollution
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS,123 the
EPA consulted with tribal officials
under the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes
early in the process of developing that
regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its
development. A summary of that
consultation is provided in 76 FR 48346
(August 8, 2011).
EPA received comments from several
tribal commenters regarding the
availability of CSAPR allowance
allocations to new units in Indian
country. EPA responded to these
comments by instituting Indian country
new unit set-asides in the final CSAPR.
In order to protect tribal sovereignty,
these set-asides are managed and
distributed by the federal government
regardless of whether CSAPR in the
adjoining or surrounding state is
implemented through a FIP or SIP.
While there are no existing affected
EGUs in Indian country covered by this
proposal, the Indian country set-asides
will ensure that any future new units
built in Indian country will be able to
obtain the necessary allowances. This
proposal maintains the Indian country
new unit set-aside and adjusts the
amounts of allowances in each set-aside
according to the same methodology of
the original CSAPR rule.
The EPA has informed tribes of our
development of this proposal through a
National Tribal Air Association—EPA
air policy conference call (January 29,
2015). The EPA plans to further consult
with tribal officials under the EPA
Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes early in
the process of developing this regulation
to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. The
EPA will facilitate this consultation
before finalizing this proposed rule.
As required by section 7(a), the EPA’s
Tribal Consultation Official has certified
that the requirements of the executive
order have been met in a meaningful
and timely manner. A copy of the
123 CSAPR also addressed interstate transport of
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certification is included in the docket
for this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5–
501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
The EPA believes that the ozone-related
benefits, PM2.5-related co-benefits, and
CO2-related co-benefits would further
improve children’s health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action, which is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, is likely to have a significant
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The EPA notes that one
aspect of this proposal that may affect
energy supply, disposition or use is the
EPA’s proposing and taking comment
on a range of options with respect to use
of 2015 vintage and 2016 vintage
CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances
for compliance with 2017 and later
ozone season requirements. The EPA
has prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects for the proposed regulatory
control alternative as follows. We
estimate a much less than 1 percent
change in retail electricity prices on
average across the contiguous U.S. in
2017, and a much less than 1 percent
reduction in coal-fired electricity
generation in 2017 as a result of this
rule. The EPA projects that utility power
sector delivered natural gas prices will
change by less than 1 percent in 2017.
For more information on the estimated
energy effects, refer to the RIA, which is
in the public docket.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations.
The EPA notes that this action
proposes to update CSAPR to reduce
interstate ozone transport with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
proposed rule uses EPA’s authority in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to reduce
(nitrogen oxides) NOX pollution that
significantly contributes to downwind
ozone nonattainment or maintenance
areas. As a result, the proposed rule will
reduce exposures to ozone in the mostcontaminated areas (i.e., areas that are
not meeting the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)). In addition, this proposed
rule separately identifies both
nonattainment areas and maintenance
areas. This requirement reduces the
likelihood that areas close to the level
of the standard will exceed the current
health-based standards in the future.
The EPA proposes to implement these
emission reductions using the CSAPR
EGU NOX ozone-season emissions
trading program with assurance
provisions.
EPA recognizes that many
environmental justice communities
have voiced concerns in the past about
emission trading and the potential for
any emission increases in any location.
The EPA believes that CSAPR mitigated
these concerns and that this proposal,
which applies the CSAPR framework to
reduce interstate ozone pollution and
implement these reductions, will also
minimize community concerns. The
EPA seeks comment from communities
on this proposal.
Ozone pollution from power plants
have both local and regional
components: Part of the pollution in a
given location—even in locations near
emission sources—is due to emissions
from nearby sources and part is due to
emissions that travel hundreds of miles
and mix with emissions from other
sources.
It is important to note that the section
of the Clean Air Act providing authority
for this proposed rule, section
110(a)(2)(D), unlike some other
provisions, does not dictate levels of
control for particular facilities. CSAPR
allows sources to trade allowances with
other sources in the same or different
states while firmly constraining any
emissions shifting that may occur by
requiring a strict emission ceiling in
each state (the assurance level). In
addition, assurance provisions in the
existing CSAPR regulations that will
remain in place under this proposal
outline the allowance surrender
penalties for failing to meet the
assurance level; there are additional
allowance penalties as well as financial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
penalties for failing to hold an adequate
number of allowances to cover
emissions.
This approach reduces EGU emissions
in each state that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment
or maintenance areas, while allowing
power companies to adjust generation as
needed and ensure that the country’s
electricity needs will continue to be
met. EPA maintains that the existence of
these assurance provisions, including
the penalties imposed when triggered,
will ensure that state emissions will stay
below the level of the budget plus
variability limit.
In addition, all sources must hold
enough allowances to cover their
emissions. Therefore, if a source emits
more than its allocation in a given year,
either another source must have used
less than its allocation and be willing to
sell some of its excess allowances, or the
source itself had emitted less than its
allocation in one or more previous years
(i.e., banked allowances for future use).
In summary, the CSAPR minimizes
community concerns about localized
hot spots and reduces ambient
concentrations of pollution where they
are most needed by sensitive and
vulnerable populations by: Considering
the science of ozone transport to set
strict state emissions budgets to reduce
significant contributions to ozone
nonattainment and maintenance (i.e.,
the most polluted) areas; implementing
air quality-assured trading; requiring
any emissions above the level of the
allocations to be offset by emission
decreases; and imposing strict penalties
for sources that contribute to a state’s
exceedance of its budget plus variability
limit. In addition, it is important to note
that nothing in this proposed rule
allows sources to violate their title V
permit or any other federal, state, or
local emissions or air quality
requirements.
In addition, it is important to note
that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d), which
addresses transport of criteria pollutants
between states, is only one of many
provisions of the CAA that provide EPA,
states, and local governments with
authorities to reduce exposure to ozone
in communities. These legal authorities
work together to reduce exposure to
these pollutants in communities,
including for minority, low-income, and
tribal populations, and provide
substantial health benefits to both the
general public and sensitive subpopulations.
The EPA has informed communities
of our development of this proposal
through an Environmental Justice
community call (January 28, 2015) and
a National Tribal Air Association—EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75763
air policy conference call (January 29,
2015). The EPA plans to further consult
with communities early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit
them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. The EPA
will facilitate this engagement before
finalizing this proposed rule.
K. Determinations Under Section
307(b)(1) and (d)
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates
which Federal Courts of Appeal have
venue for petitions of review of final
actions by EPA. This section provides,
in part, that petitions for review must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit 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.’’
The EPA proposes to find that any
final action related to this rulemaking is
‘‘nationally applicable’’ or of
‘‘nationwide scope and effect’’ within
the meaning of section 307(b)(1).
Through this rulemaking action, the
EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA,
a provision which has nationwide
applicability. In addition, the proposed
rule would apply to 23 States. The
proposed rule is also based on a
common core of factual findings and
analyses concerning the transport of
pollutants between the different states
subject to it. For these reasons, the
Administrator proposes to determine
that any final action related to the
proposed rule is of nationwide scope
and effect for purposes of section
307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section
307(b) any petitions for review of any
final actions regarding the rulemaking
would be filed in the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days from the date any final
action is published in the Federal
Register.
In addition, pursuant to sections
307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the
CAA, the Administrator proposes to
determine 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, to ‘‘the promulgation or revision
of an implementation plan by the
Administrator under CAA section
110(c).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under
section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of
section 307(d) also apply to ‘‘such other
actions as the Administrator may
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75764
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
determine.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(V).
The Agency has complied with
procedural requirements of CAA section
307(d) during the course of this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52, 78,
and 97.
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power
plants, Incorporation by reference,
Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 16, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, parts 52, 78, and 97 of
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§§ 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 52.184, 52.540,
52.584, 52.585, 52.731, 52.732, 52.789,
52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883,
52.940, 52.941, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1085,
52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284,
52.1326, 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584,
52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784, 52.1785,
52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2041,
52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283,
52.2284, 52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541,
52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended]
2. Sections 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55,
52.184, 52.540, 52.584, 52.585, 52.731,
52.732, 52.789, 52.790, 52.840, 52.841,
52.882, 52.883, 52.940, 52.941, 52.984,
52.1084, 52.1085, 52.1186, 52.1187,
52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 52.1326,
52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584,
52.1585, 52.1684, 52.1685, 52.1784,
52.1785, 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930,
52.2040, 52.2041, 52.2140, 52.2141,
52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 52.2284,
52.2440, 52.2441, 52.2540, 52.2541,
52.2587, and 52.2588 are amended by
removing ‘‘TR Federal Implementation
Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in
its place ‘‘CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan’’, by removing ‘‘TR
NOX’’ wherever it appears and adding in
its place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and by
removing ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears
and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
§§ 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883,
52.984, 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241,
52.1284, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685,
52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2283,
52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended]
3. Sections 52.540, 52.840, 52.841,
52.882, 52.883, 52.984, 52.1186,
52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284,
52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685,
52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141,
52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2587, and 52.2588
are amended by removing ‘‘correcting in
part the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis
for the CSAPR Federal Implementation
Plan’’ wherever it appears and adding in
its place ‘‘correcting the SIP’s deficiency
that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan’’.
■
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 52.36
[Amended]
4. Section 52.36 is amended in
paragraph (e)(1)(i) by removing
‘‘paragraphs (a) through (e)’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a) through (c)’’.
■ 5. Section 52.38 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing
‘‘the sources in the following States’’
and adding in its place ‘‘sources in each
of the following States’’;
■ c. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by adding
‘‘the’’ before ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual
trading budget’’;
■ d. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A), by
removing ‘‘paragraph’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraphs’’;
■ e. In the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B),
by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing
‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘the Administrator’’;
■ f. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by removing
‘‘for the first control period’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘applicable to the first
control period’’;
■ g. In paragraph (a)(5) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘in whole or in part,
as appropriate,’’, and by removing
‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
section with regard to sources in the
State but not sources in any Indian
country within the borders of the State’’;
■ h. In the table in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B),
by removing ‘‘annual’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Annual’’, and by removing
‘‘administrator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘the Administrator’’;
■ i. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by adding
after ‘‘97.412(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’;
■ j. In paragraph (a)(5)(v), by removing
‘‘97.425, and’’ and adding in its place
‘‘and 97.425 of this chapter and’’, and
by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the
words ‘‘of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of
this chapter’’;
■
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
k. In paragraph (a)(5)(vi), by removing
‘‘paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (a)(5)(i)’’;
■ l. In paragraph (a)(6), by removing ‘‘in
whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by
removing ‘‘described in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (5)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4)’’, and by removing ‘‘the
sources’’ and adding in its place
‘‘sources’’;
■ m. In paragraph (a)(7), by removing ‘‘a
State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the
State’’;
■ n. In paragraph (b)(1), by adding
‘‘subpart BBBBB of’’ before ‘‘part 97’’;
■ o. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
■ p. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as
paragraph (b)(3)(i); in redesignated
paragraph (b)(3)(i), by further
redesignating paragraphs (i) through (v)
as paragraphs (A) through (E); and in
redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E), by
further redesignating paragraphs (A) and
(B) as paragraphs (1) and (2);
■ q. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3)(i) introductory text, by removing
‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii)’’;
■ r. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(B), by adding ‘‘the’’ before
‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading
budget’’;
■ s. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(E)(1), by removing ‘‘paragraph
(b)(3)(i) through (iv)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through
(D)’’;
■ t. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(E)(2), by removing ‘‘paragraph
(b)(3)(v)(A)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E)(1)’’;
■ u. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii);
■ v. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’;
■ w. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by
adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with
regard to the State’’, and by removing
‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place
‘‘wherever’’;
■ x. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)
introductory text;
■ y. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B), by
revising the table;
■ z. In paragraph (b)(5) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’, by removing ‘‘in whole
or in part, as appropriate,’’, and by
removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section with regard to sources in the
State but not sources in any Indian
country within the borders of the State’’;
■ aa. In paragraph (b)(5)(i), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’, by
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
adding after ‘‘chapter’’ the words ‘‘with
regard to the State’’, and by removing
‘‘whenever’’ and adding in its place
‘‘wherever’’;
■ bb. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii)
introductory text;
■ cc. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B), by
removing ‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘auctions of
CSAPR’’, and by revising the table;
■ dd. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C), by
removing ‘‘any control period’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘any such control
period’’;
■ ee. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), by adding
a comma after ‘‘May adopt’’;
■ ff. In paragraph (b)(5)(v), by adding
after ‘‘97.512(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’;
■ gg. In paragraph (b)(5)(vi), by
removing ‘‘97.525, and’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘and 97.525 of this chapter
and’’, and by adding after ‘‘other
provisions’’ the words ‘‘of subpart
BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter’’;
■ hh. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii), by
removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i) through
(v)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section and
paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) through (v)’’, by
removing ‘‘paragraphs (5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs
(b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C)’’, and by removing
‘‘paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)(5)(i)
or (ii)’’;
■ ii. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing
‘‘in whole or in part, as appropriate,’’,
and by removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)’’; and
■ jj. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing ‘‘a
State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the
State’’.
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?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB
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 in the following years:
(i) With regard to emissions in 2015
and 2016 only, Florida and South
Carolina;
(ii) With regard to emissions in 2015
and each subsequent year, Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin; and
(iii) With regard to emissions in 2017
and each subsequent year, Kansas.
(3) * * *
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State
other than Georgia listed in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section may
adopt and include in a SIP revision, and
the Administrator will approve, as
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
allocation provisions replacing the
provisions in § 97.511(a) of this chapter
with regard to the State and the control
period in 2018, a list of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units and the amount of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocated to each unit on such list,
provided that the list of units and
allocations meets the following
requirements:
(A) All of the units on the list must
be units that are in the State and
commenced commercial operation
before January 1, 2015;
(B) The total amount of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance allocations on
the list must not exceed the amount,
under § 97.510(a) of this chapter for the
State and the control period in 2018, of
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading
budget minus the sum of the new unit
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances are allocated or auctioned
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
and any year thereafter ...................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(ii) May adopt, as CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance allocation provisions
replacing the provisions in §§ 97.511(a)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
set-aside and Indian country new unit
set-aside;
(C) The list must be submitted
electronically in a format specified by
the Administrator; and
(D) The SIP revision must not provide
for any change in the units and
allocations on the list after approval of
the SIP revision by the Administrator
and must not provide for any change in
any allocation determined and recorded
by the Administrator under subpart
BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter;
(E) Provided that:
(1) By November 15, 2016, the State
must notify the Administrator
electronically in a format specified by
the Administrator of the State’s intent to
submit to the Administrator a complete
SIP revision meeting the requirements
of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of
this section by April 1, 2017; and
(2) The State must submit to the
Administrator a complete SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of
this section by April 1, 2017.
(4) * * *
(ii) The State may adopt, as CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation
or auction provisions replacing the
provisions in §§ 97.511(a) and (b)(1) and
97.512(a) of this chapter with regard to
the State and the control period in 2017
or any subsequent year or, for Kansas,
2019 or any subsequent year, any
methodology under which the State or
the permitting authority allocates or
auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances and may adopt, in addition
to the definitions in § 97.502 of this
chapter, one or more definitions that
shall apply only to terms as used in the
adopted CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance allocation or auction
provisions, if such methodology—
*
*
*
*
*
(B) * * *
Deadline for submission of allocations or
auction results to the Administrator
November 1, 2016.
November 1, 2016.
June 1, 2018.
June 1, 2018.
June 1, 2019.
June 1, 2019.
June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period.
and (b)(1) and 97.512(a) of this chapter
with regard to the State and the control
period in 2019 or any subsequent year
or, for Georgia, 2017 or any subsequent
year, any methodology under which the
PO 00000
75765
Sfmt 4702
State or the permitting authority
allocates or auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances and that—
*
*
*
*
*
(B) * * *
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75766
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Year of the control period for which CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances are allocated or auctioned
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
and any year thereafter ...................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
§ 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?
6. Section 52.39 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading as set
forth above;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 1 trading
budget’’;
■ c. In paragraph (d)(5)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (d)(1) through (4)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (d)(1)
through (4)’’;
■ d. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory
text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’
the words ‘‘the State and’’;
■ e. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by
removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’
and adding in its place ‘‘the
Administrator’’;
■ f. In paragraph (f) introductory text, by
removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as
appropriate,’’, and by removing
‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this
section’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this
section with regard to sources in the
State but not sources in any Indian
country within the borders of the State’’;
■ g. In paragraph (f)(1) introductory text,
by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the
words ‘‘the State and’’, and by removing
‘‘and any subsequent year’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘or any subsequent year’’;
■ h. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), by removing
‘‘for such control period’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘for any such control period’’;
■ i. In paragraph (f)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by
removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’
and adding in its place ‘‘the
Administrator’’;
■ j. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing
‘‘paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)
and (iii)’’;
■ k. In paragraph (f)(4), by adding after
‘‘97.612(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’;
■ l. In paragraph (f)(5), by removing
‘‘97.625, and’’ and adding in its place
‘‘and 97.625 of this chapter and’’, and
by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Deadline for submission of allocations or
auction results to the Administrator
November 1, 2016.
November 1, 2016.
June 1, 2018.
June 1, 2018.
June 1, 2019.
June 1, 2019.
June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control period.
words ‘‘of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of
this chapter’’;
■ m. In paragraph (f)(6), by removing
‘‘hold an auction under paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph
(f)(1)’’;
■ n. In paragraph (g) introductory text,
by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’ the
words ‘‘the State and’’;
■ o. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2 trading
budget’’;
■ p. In paragraph (g)(5)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (g)(1) through (4)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (g)(1)
through (4)’’;
■ q. In paragraph (h)(1) introductory
text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’
the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by
removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’
and adding in its place ‘‘or any
subsequent year’’;
■ r. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by
removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’
and adding in its place ‘‘the
Administrator’’;
■ s. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing
‘‘hold an auction under paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph
(h)(1)’’;
■ t. In paragraph (i) introductory text, by
removing ‘‘in whole or in part, as
appropriate,’’, and by removing
‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this
section’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this
section with regard to sources in the
State but not sources in any Indian
country within the borders of the State’’;
■ u. In paragraph (i)(1) introductory
text, by adding after ‘‘with regard to’’
the words ‘‘the State and’’, and by
removing ‘‘and any subsequent year’’
and adding in its place ‘‘or any
subsequent year’’;
■ v. In paragraph (i)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘auction of CSAPR’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘auctions of CSAPR’’, and by
removing in the table ‘‘administrator’’
and adding in its place ‘‘the
Administrator’’;
■ w. In paragraph (i)(4), by adding after
‘‘97.712(b)’’ the words ‘‘of this chapter’’;
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
x. In paragraph (i)(5), by removing
‘‘97.725, and’’ and adding in its place
‘‘and 97.725 of this chapter and’’, and
by adding after ‘‘other provisions’’ the
words ‘‘of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of
this chapter’’;
■ y. In paragraph (i)(6), by removing
‘‘hold an auction under paragraphs
(i)(1)(ii) and (iii)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘hold an auction under paragraph
(i)(1)’’;
■ z. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘in
whole or in part, as appropriate,’’, by
adding after ‘‘CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan’’ the words ‘‘set
forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e)
of this section or paragraphs (a), (c), (g),
and (h) of this section, as applicable’’,
and by removing ‘‘paragraph (b) and (c)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)
or (c)’’; and
■ aa. In paragraph (k), by removing ‘‘a
State’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the
State’’.
■
Subpart B—Alabama
§ 52.54
[Amended]
7. Section 52.54 is amended in
paragraph (b)(2) by removing ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘Alabama’s SIP revision’’.
■
Subpart K—Florida
8. Section 52.540 is amended by
adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.540 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of
this section, no source or unit located in
the State of Florida or Indian country
within the borders of the State shall be
required under paragraph (a) of this
section to comply with the requirements
set forth under the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program in subpart
BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter with
regard to emissions after 2016.
Subpart R—Kansas
9. Section 52.882 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
§ 52.2140 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of Kansas and Indian country within the
borders of the State and for which
requirements are set forth under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such
requirements. The obligation to comply
with such requirements with regard to
sources and units in the State will be
eliminated by the promulgation of an
approval by the Administrator of a
revision to Kansas’ State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting
the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for
the CSAPR Federal Implementation
Plan under § 52.38(b), except to the
extent the Administrator’s approval is
partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units located in
Indian country within the borders of the
State will not be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Kansas’
SIP.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances under subpart BBBBB of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State for a control period in any year,
the provisions of subpart BBBBB of part
97 of this chapter authorizing the
Administrator to complete the
allocation and recordation of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances to units
in the State for each such control period
shall continue to apply, unless provided
otherwise by such approval of the
State’s SIP revision.
Subpart X—Michigan
§ 52.1187
[Amended]
10. Section 52.1187 is amended in
paragraph (c)(2) by removing
‘‘Maryland’s SIP revision’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘Michigan’s SIP revision’’.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
Subpart PP—South Carolina
11. Section 52.2140 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)
of this section, no source or unit located
in the State of South Carolina or Indian
country within the borders of the State
shall be required under paragraph (b)(1)
of this section to comply with the
requirements set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in
subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter
with regard to emissions after 2016.
PART 78—APPEAL PROCEDURES
12. The authority citation for part 78
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410,
7411, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq.
§§ 78.1 and 78.4
13. Sections 78.1 and 78.4 are
amended by removing ‘‘TR NOX’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and by removing
‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR SO2’’.
■ 14. Section 78.1 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding after
‘‘part 97 of this chapter’’ the words ‘‘or
State regulations approved under
§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5) or (b)(4) or (5) of this
chapter or § 52.39(e), (f), (h), or (i) of this
chapter’’, and by adding a new third
sentence at the end of the paragraph;
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(14)(viii); and
■ c. In paragraphs (b)(16)(ii), (iii), and
(v), by removing ‘‘SO2 Group 1’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘SO2 Group 2’’.
The additions read as follows:
Purpose and scope.
(a)(1) * * * All references in
paragraph (b) of this section and in
§ 78.3 to subpart AAAAA of part 97 of
this chapter, subpart BBBBB of part 97
of this chapter, subpart CCCCC of part
97 of this chapter, and subpart DDDDD
of part 97 of this chapter shall be read
to include the comparable provisions in
State regulations approved under
§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter,
§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter,
§ 52.39(e) or (f) of this chapter, and
§ 52.39(h) or (i) of this chapter,
respectively.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(14) * * *
(viii) The determination of the
tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance under
§ 97.524(f) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
[Amended]
15. Section 78.4 is amended in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ‘‘a
affected’’ and adding in its place ‘‘an
affected’’, by adding ‘‘or’’ before
‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit’’, and by
removing ‘‘, or a unit for which a TR
opt-in application is submitted and not
withdrawn’’.
■
PART 97—FEDERAL NOX BUDGET
TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND
SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND
CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING
PROGRAMS
16. The heading of part 97 is revised
to read as set forth above.
■ 17. The authority citation for part 97
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410,
7426, 7601, and 7651, et seq.
§§ 97.401 through 97.735
[Amended]
18. Sections 97.401 through 97.735
are amended by removing ‘‘Transport
Rule (TR)’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR)’’, by removing
‘‘TR NOX’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’, and
by removing ‘‘TR SO2’’ wherever it
appears and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR
SO2’’.
■
[Amended]
■
§ 78.1
§ 78.4
75767
Subpart AAAAA—CSAPR NOX Annual
Trading Program
19. The heading of subpart AAAAA of
part 97 is revised to read as set forth
above.
■
§ 97.402
[Amended]
20. Section 97.402 is amended by:
a. Relocating all definitions beginning
with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical
locations in the list of definitions;
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration
system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine
generator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘generator’’;
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence
commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2)
introductory text, by adding after
‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ d. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR NOX
Annual allowances held or hold TR NO4
Annual allowances’’, by removing ‘‘TR
NO4’’ and adding in its place ‘‘CSAPR
NOX’’;
■ e. In the definition of ‘‘CSAPR SO2
Group 2 Trading Program’’, by removing
‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’;
■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by
removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place
§ ’’;
■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Owner’’, by
removing the paragraph designator ‘‘3)’’
and adding in its place the paragraph
designator ‘‘(3)’’; and
■
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75768
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
h. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use
of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding
after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’.
■
§ 97.404
[Amended]
21. Section 97.404 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing
‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and
■ b. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
■
■
§ 97.406
[Amended]
22. Section 97.406 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7); and
■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4),
by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Annual’’ before
‘‘allowances.’’
■
■
§ 97.410 State NOX Annual trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-asides, and variability
limits.
23. Section 97.410 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading as set forth
above;
■ b. Removing ‘‘NOX annual trading
budget’’ wherever it appears and adding
in its place ‘‘NOX Annual trading
budget’’;
■ c. Removing ‘‘NOX annual new unit
set-aside’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’;
■ d. Removing ‘‘NOX annual Indian
country new unit set-aside’’ wherever it
appears and adding in its place ‘‘Indian
country new unit set-aside’’;
■ e. Removing ‘‘NOX annual variability
limit’’ wherever it appears and adding
in its place ‘‘variability limit’’;
■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text,
by removing ‘‘new unit-set aside’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’;
■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs
(a)(11)(vi) and (a)(16)(vi); and
■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after
‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing
‘‘identified’’, and by removing ‘‘set
aside’’ wherever it appears and adding
in its place ‘‘set-aside’’.
■
■
§ 97.411
[Amended]
24. Section 97.411 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30
of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘§ 52.38(a)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’;
■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’;
■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’
and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’;
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’; and
■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing
‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘of this section’’.
■
§ 97.412
[Amended]
25. Section 97.412 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iii)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
and
■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(a)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’.
■
■
§ 97.421
[Amended]
26. Section 97.421 is amended by:
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by
removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘periods’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the
date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date
15 days after the date’’.
■
■
§ 97.425
[Amended]
27. Section 97.425 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by
adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’
before ‘‘any adjustments’’;
■ c. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘the’’ before ‘‘them’’; and
■ d. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by
removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word
‘‘at’’.
■
■
§ 97.426
[Amended]
28. Section 97.426 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘97.427, or
97.428’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 97.427, or § 97.428’’.
■
§ 97.428
[Amended]
29. Section 97.428 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph
(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (a)’’.
■
§ 97.430
[Amended]
30. Section 97.430 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a CSAPR NOX Annual unit’’, by adding
‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following
dates’’ each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in
its place a colon;
■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) introductory text;
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon
and adding in its place a period;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’.
§ 97.431
[Amended]
31. Section 97.431 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D),
and (d)(3)(v); and
■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’.
■
■
§ 97.434
[Amended]
32. Section 97.434 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘requirements’’;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by
adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final
colon;
■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and
■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’
and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by
removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the
third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which
case reporting shall commence in the
quarter covering January 1, 2015
through March 31, 2015’’.
■
■
Subpart BBBBB—CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program
33. The heading of subpart BBBBB of
part 97 is revised to read as set forth
above.
■ 34. Section 97.502 is amended by:
■ a. Relocating all definitions beginning
with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical
locations in the list of definitions;
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration
system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine
generator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘generator’’;
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence
commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2)
introductory text, by adding after
‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
d. Revising the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance’’ and
‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions
limitation’’;
■ e. In the definitions of ‘‘CSAPR SO2
Group 1 Trading Program’’ and ‘‘CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program’’, by
removing ‘‘52.39(a)’’ and adding in in its
place ‘‘§ 52.39(a)’’;
■ f. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by
removing ‘‘§§’’ and adding in its place
§’’;
■ g. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use
of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding
after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’; and
■ h. Adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition of ‘‘Tonnage equivalent.’’
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
§ 97.502
Definitions.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
means a limited authorization under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program issued and allocated or
auctioned to a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit in a State (or Indian country
within the borders of such State) by the
Administrator under this subpart, or by
the State or permitting authority under
a SIP revision approved by the
Administrator under § 52.38(b)(3), (4),
or (5) of this chapter, to emit either:
(1) One ton of NOX in the State (or
Indian country located within the
borders of such State) during a control
period of the specified calendar year for
which the authorization is allocated or
auctioned; or
(2) As determined under § 97.524(f),
up to one ton of NOX in another State
(or Indian country located within the
borders of another State) or during a
control period after the specified
calendar year for which the
authorization is allocated or auctioned.
*
*
*
*
*
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions
limitation means, for a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season source, the tonnage of
NOX emissions authorized in a control
period in a given year by the tonnage
equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances available for
deduction for the source under
§ 97.524(a) for such control period.
*
*
*
*
*
Tonnage equivalent means, with
regard to a specific individual CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance held or
deducted for an identified purpose, the
portion of one ton represented by the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance as
determined under § 97.524(f) or, with
regard to a specific group of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances held or
deducted for a common identified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
purpose, the unrounded sum of the
tonnage equivalents of the individual
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
comprising the group.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 97.504
[Amended]
35. Section 97.504 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing
‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’, and by
removing ‘‘TR NOX’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘CSAPR NOX’’; and
■ b. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
■ 36. Section 97.506 is amended by:
■ a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c), (c)(1) and (2), and (c)(4)
through (7);
■ b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(2)(i) introductory text, and
(c)(2)(v)(B);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(i) as
paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), and revising it;
■ d. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B);
■ e. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4),
by adding ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season’’
before ‘‘allowances’’; and
■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(6)
introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 97.506
Standard requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As of the allowance transfer
deadline for a control period in a given
year, the owners and operators of each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source and
each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit at
the source shall hold, in the source’s
compliance account, CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances available for
deduction for such control period under
§ 97.524(a) with a tonnage equivalent
not less than the tons of total NOX
emissions for such control period from
all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at
the source.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) If total NOX emissions during a
control period in a given year from all
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources in a
State (and Indian country within the
borders of such State) exceed the State
assurance level, then the owners and
operators of such sources and units in
each group of one or more sources and
units having a common designated
representative for such control period,
where the common designated
representative’s share of such NOX
emissions during such control period
exceeds the common designated
representative’s assurance level for the
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75769
State and such control period, shall
hold (in the assurance account
established for the owners and operators
of such group) CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances available for
deduction for such control period under
§ 97.525(a) with a tonnage equivalent
not less than two times the product
(rounded to the nearest whole number),
as determined by the Administrator in
accordance with § 97.525(b), of
multiplying—
*
*
*
*
*
(v) * * *
(B) Each ton of the tonnage equivalent
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances that the owners and
operators fail to hold for such control
period in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section and
each day of such control period shall
constitute a separate violation of this
subpart and the Clean Air Act.
(3) * * *
(i)(A) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit shall be subject to
the requirements under paragraph (c)(1)
of this section for the control period
starting on the later of May 1, 2015 or
the deadline for meeting the unit’s
monitor certification requirements
under § 97.530(b) and for each control
period thereafter.
(B) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit
in the State of Kansas (or Indian country
within the borders of the State) that is
not a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in
another State (or Indian country within
the borders of another State) during any
portion of a control period in 2015 or
2016 shall be subject to the
requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of
this section for the control period
starting on the later of May 1, 2017 or
the deadline for meeting the unit’s
monitor certification requirements
under § 97.530(b) and for each control
period thereafter.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Limited authorization. A CSAPR
NOX; Ozone Season allowance is a
limited authorization to emit up to one
ton of NOX; during the control period in
one year as determined under
§ 97.524(f). Such authorization is
limited in its use and duration as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 37. Section 97.510 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-asides, and variability
limits.
(a) The State NOX Ozone Season
trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
and Indian country new unit set-asides
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75770
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances for the control
periods in 2015 and thereafter are as
follows:
(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 31,746 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 635 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,979
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 205 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 15,110 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 756 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,949
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 141 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(3) Florida. (i) The NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is
28,644 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 544 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 29 tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(4) Georgia. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 27,944 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 559 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 24,041
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 481 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(5) Illinois. (i) The NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is
21,208 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,697 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,078
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 591 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(6) Indiana. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 46,876 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,406 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 28,284
tons.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 565 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(7) Iowa. (i) The NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is
16,532 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 314 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 17 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 8,351
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 411 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 8 tons.
(8) Kansas. (i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 9,272
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 272 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 9 tons.
(9) Kentucky. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 36,167 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,447 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 21,519
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 647 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(10) Louisiana. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 18,115 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 344 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 18 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,807
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 612 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons.
(11) Maryland. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 7,179 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 144 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,026
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 485 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(12) Michigan. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 28,041 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 533 tons.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 28 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 19,115
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 363 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 19 tons.
(13) Mississippi. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 12,429 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 237 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 12 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,910
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 584 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons.
(14) Missouri. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 22,788 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is
684 tons and for 2016 is 1,367 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 15,323
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 314 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(15) New Jersey. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 4,128 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 83 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 2,015
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 1,151 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(16) New York. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 10,369 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 197 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 10 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 4,450
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 89 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 4 tons.
(17) North Carolina. (i) The NOX
Ozone Season trading budget for 2015
and 2016 is 22,168 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,308 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 22 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 12,275
tons.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 236 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 12 tons.
(18) Ohio. (i) The NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is
41,284 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 826 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,660
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 337 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(19) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 is 36,567
tons and for 2016 is 22,694 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is
731 tons and for 2016 is 454 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 16,215
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 309 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons.
(20) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 52,201 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,044 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 14,387
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 1,017 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(21) South Carolina. (i) The NOX
Ozone Season trading budget for 2015
and 2016 is 13,909 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 264 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 14 tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(22) Tennessee. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 14,908 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 298 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,481
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 109 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(23) Texas. (i) The NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for 2015 and 2016 is
65,560 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 2,556 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 66 tons.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 58,002
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 2,852 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 58 tons.
(24) Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 14,452 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 723 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 6,818
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 1,844 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(25) West Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 25,283 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 1,264 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 13,390
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 268 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(26) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX Ozone
Season trading budget for 2015 and
2016 is 14,784 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015
and 2016 is 872 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2015 and 2016 is 15 tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2017 and thereafter is 5,561
tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017
and thereafter is 115 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit setaside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons.
(b) The States’ variability limits for
the State NOX Ozone Season trading
budgets for the control periods in 2017
and thereafter are as follows:
(1) The variability limit for Alabama
is 2,096 tons.
(2) The variability limit for Arkansas
is 1,459 tons.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The variability limit for Georgia is
5,049 tons.
(5) The variability limit for Illinois is
2,536 tons.
(6) The variability limit for Indiana is
5,940 tons.
(7) The variability limit for Iowa is
1,754 tons.
(8) The variability limit for Kansas is
1,947 tons.
(9) The variability limit for Kentucky
is 4,519 tons.
(10) The variability limit for Louisiana
is 3,319 tons.
(11) The variability limit for Maryland
is 845 tons.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75771
(12) The variability limit for Michigan
is 4,014 tons.
(13) The variability limit for
Mississippi is 1,241 tons.
(14) The variability limit for Missouri
is 3,218 tons.
(15) The variability limit for New
Jersey is 423 tons.
(16) The variability limit for New
York is 935 tons.
(17) The variability limit for North
Carolina is 2,578 tons.
(18) The variability limit for Ohio is
3,499 tons.
(19) The variability limit for
Oklahoma is 3,405 tons.
(20) The variability limit for
Pennsylvania is 3,021 tons.
(21) [Reserved]
(22) The variability limit for
Tennessee is 1,151 tons.
(23) The variability limit for Texas is
12,180 tons.
(24) The variability limit for Virginia
is 1,432 tons.
(25) The variability limit for West
Virginia is 2,812 tons.
(26) The variability limit for
Wisconsin is 1,168 tons.
(c) Each State NOX Ozone Season
trading budget in this section includes
any tons in a new unit set-aside or
Indian country new unit set-aside, but
does not include any tons in a
variability limit.
■ 38. Section 97.511 is amended by:
■ a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘August 31
of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B), by adding
a paragraph break after the end of the
second sentence and before the
paragraph designator ‘‘(v)’’ for the
following paragraph (b)(2)(v);
■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3), (4), or (5)’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’, and by
removing ‘‘January 1’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘May 1’’;
■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’;
■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’
and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’;
■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’; and
■ i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing
‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘of this section’’.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 97.511 Timing requirements for CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations.
*
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
*
*
03DEP2
*
*
75772
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(c) * * *
(3) If the Administrator already
recorded such CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances under § 97.521 and if
the Administrator makes the
determination under paragraph (c)(1) of
this section before making deductions
for the source that includes such
recipient under § 97.524(b) for such
control period, then the Administrator
will deduct from the account in which
such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances were recorded CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances allocated for
the same or a prior control period until
the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances
deducted under this paragraph equals or
exceeds the tonnage equivalent of such
already recorded CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances, making all such
deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances. The authorized
account representative shall ensure that
there are CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances in such account with a
tonnage equivalent sufficient for
completion of the deduction.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 39. Section 97.512 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iii)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’;
■ d. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ e. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text;
■ g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ h. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘August 31 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
and
■ i. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(4) or (5)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’.
The revisions read as follows:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 97.512 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance allocations to new units.
(a) For each control period in 2015
and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units in each State for
which a new unit set-aside is set forth
in § 97.510 for that control period, the
Administrator will allocate CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) For each control period in 2015
and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
Ozone Season units located in Indian
country within the borders of each State
for which an Indian country new unit
set-aside is set forth in § 97.510 for that
control period, the Administrator will
allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 40. Section 97.521 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
by removing ‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i) through
(iv)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 52.38(b)(3)(i)(A) through (D)’’;
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (c)(1), and revising it;
■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(2);
■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and
■ e. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the
date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date
15 days after the date’’.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 97.521 Recordation of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance allocations and
auction results.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) By December 1, 2016, the
Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source’s
compliance account the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at
the source, or in each appropriate
Allowance Management System account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances auctioned to CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units, in accordance with
§ 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision
approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of
this chapter, for the control period in
2017 or, for such sources in Georgia, the
control periods in 2017 and 2018.
(2) For the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
sources not in Georgia, by December 1,
2016, the Administrator will record in
each such source’s compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units at the source in
accordance with § 97.511(a) for the
control period in 2018, unless the State
in which the source is located notifies
the Administrator in writing by
November 15, 2016 of the State’s intent
to submit to the Administrator a
complete SIP revision by April 1, 2017
meeting the requirements of
§ 52.38(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of this
chapter.
(A) If the State does not submit to the
Administrator by April 1, 2017 such
complete SIP revision, the
Administrator will record by April 15,
2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
source’s compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated
to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units
at the source in accordance with
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 97.511(a) for the control period in
2018.
(B) If the State submits to the
Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the
Administrator approves by October 1,
2017 such complete SIP revision, the
Administrator will record by October 1,
2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
source’s compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated
to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units
at the source as provided in such
approved, complete SIP revision for the
control period in 2018.
(C) If the State submits to the
Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the
Administrator does not approve by
October 1, 2017 such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record
by October 1, 2017 in each CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units at the source in
accordance with § 97.511(a) for the
control period in 2018.
(d) By July 1, 2018, the Administrator
will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season source’s compliance account the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units at the source, or in each
appropriate Allowance Management
System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units, in accordance
with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision
approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of
this chapter, for the control periods in
2019 and 2020.
(e) By July 1, 2019, the Administrator
will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season source’s compliance account the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units at the source, or in each
appropriate Allowance Management
System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units, in accordance
with § 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision
approved under § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of
this chapter, for the control periods in
2021 and 2022.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 41. Section 97.524 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(1), (c)(2)
introductory text, and (c)(2)(i) and (ii);
■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)
through (v);
■ c. Revising paragraph (d); and
■ d. Adding paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 97.524 Compliance with CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season emissions limitation.
*
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
*
*
03DEP2
*
*
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(b) Deductions for compliance. After
the recordation, in accordance with
§ 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance transfers submitted by the
allowance transfer deadline for a control
period in a given year, the
Administrator will deduct from each
source’s compliance account CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances available
under paragraph (a) of this section in
order to determine whether the source
meets the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
emissions limitation for such control
period, making all such deductions in
whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances, as follows:
(1) Until the tonnage equivalent of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
deducted equals or exceeds the number
of tons of total NOX emissions from all
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at the
source for such control period; or
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Default order of deductions. The
Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances under
paragraph (b) or (d) of this section from
the source’s compliance account in
accordance with a complete request
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or,
in the absence of such request or in the
case of identification of an insufficient
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances in such request, in the
following order:
(i) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances determined under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage
equivalent of one ton per allowance that
were allocated or auctioned from the
NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
the State within whose borders the
source is located to the units at the
source and were not transferred out of
the compliance account, in the order of
recordation;
(ii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances determined under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage
equivalent of one ton per allowance that
were not allocated or auctioned from the
NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
the State within whose borders the
source is located to any unit at the
source and were transferred to and
recorded in the compliance account
pursuant to this subpart, in the order of
recordation;
(iii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances determined under paragraph
(f)(2) of this section to have a tonnage
equivalent of four tenths of one ton per
allowance, in the order of recordation;
(iv) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances determined under paragraph
(f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage
equivalent of one fourth of one ton per
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
allowance that were allocated or
auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for the State within
whose borders the source is located to
the units at the source and were not
transferred out of the compliance
account, in the order of recordation; and
(v) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances determined under paragraph
(f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage
equivalent of one fourth of one ton per
allowance that were not allocated or
auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season
trading budget for the State within
whose borders the source is located to
any unit at the source and were
transferred to and recorded in the
compliance account pursuant to this
subpart, in the order of recordation.
(d) Deductions for excess emissions.
After making the deductions for
compliance under paragraph (b) of this
section for a control period in a year in
which the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
source has excess emissions, the
Administrator will deduct from the
source’s compliance account CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated
for a control period in a prior year or the
control period in the year of the excess
emissions or in the immediately
following year, making all such
deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances, until the tonnage
equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances deducted under this
paragraph equals or exceeds two times
the number of tons of the source’s
excess emissions.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Tonnage equivalents of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances. Where a
determination is needed of the tonnage
equivalent of a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance held or deducted
under any provision of § 97.506(c),
§ 97.511(c), § 97.524, § 97.525, § 97.527,
or § 97.528 relating to the holding or
deduction of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances, the Administrator will
make the determination as follows,
provided that notwithstanding any such
determination the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance remains subject to the
limitations in § 97.506(c)(6):
(1) Except as provided under
paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section,
the tonnage equivalent of each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance shall be
one ton per allowance.
(2) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance has been allocated or
auctioned for a control period in 2017
or a subsequent year from the NOX
Ozone Season trading budget for
Georgia, and where the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance is held or
deducted for any purpose related to
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75773
emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit in another State (or Indian
country within the borders of another
State) or for the purpose of correcting an
allocation or recordation error affecting
a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in
another State (or Indian country within
the borders of another State), the
tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance shall be four
tenths of one ton per allowance.
(3) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance has been allocated or
auctioned for a control period in 2015
or 2016, and where the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance is held or
deducted for any purpose related to
emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit in any State except Georgia
(or Indian country within the borders of
such a State) in a control period in 2017
or a subsequent year or for the purpose
of correcting an allocation or
recordation error affecting a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season unit in any State
except Georgia (or Indian country
within the borders of such a State) for
a control period in 2017 or a subsequent
year, the tonnage equivalent of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
shall be one fourth of one ton per
allowance.
(4) The Administrator will determine
the year of the compliance period for
which a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance was allocated or auctioned
and the State from whose NOX Ozone
Season trading budget the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowance was allocated
or auctioned based on the records
maintained in the Allowance
Management System.
■ 42. Section 97.525 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (b)(2)(ii);
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding
‘‘the calculations incorporating’’ before
‘‘any adjustments’’; and
■ d. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5),
(b)(6) introductory text, (b)(6)(i) and (ii),
(b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and
(b)(6)(iii)(A) and (B).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 97.525 Compliance with CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season assurance provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Deductions for compliance. The
Administrator will deduct CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances available
under paragraph (a) of this section for
compliance with the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season assurance provisions for a State
for a control period in a given year in
accordance with the following
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
75774
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
procedures, making all such deductions
in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(ii) By August 1 immediately after the
promulgation of such notice, the
Administrator will calculate, for each
such State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) and such
control period and each common
designated representative for such
control period for a group of one or
more CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
sources and units in the State (and
Indian country within the borders of
such State), the common designated
representative’s share of the total NOX
emissions from all CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units at CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season sources in the State (and Indian
country within the borders of such
State), the common designated
representative’s assurance level, and the
tonnage equivalent (if any) of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances that the
owners and operators of such group of
sources and units must hold in
accordance with the calculation formula
in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) and will promulgate
a notice of data availability of the results
of these calculations.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(i) As of midnight of November 1
immediately after the promulgation of
each notice of data availability required
in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section,
the owners and operators described in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall
hold in the assurance account
established for them and for the
appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units, and State (and Indian country
within the borders of such State) under
paragraph (b)(3) of this section CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances,
available for deduction under paragraph
(a) of this section, with a total tonnage
equivalent not less than the tonnage
equivalent such owners and operators
are required to hold with regard to such
sources, units and State (and Indian
country within the borders of such
State) as calculated by the
Administrator and referenced in such
notice.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) After November 1 (or the date
described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this
section) immediately after the
promulgation of each notice of data
availability required in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the
recordation, in accordance with
§ 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance transfers submitted by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
midnight of such date, the
Administrator will determine whether
the owners and operators described in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in
the assurance account for the
appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units, and State (and Indian country
within the borders of such State)
established under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances available under paragraph
(a) of this section with the tonnage
equivalent that the owners and
operators are required to hold with
regard to such sources, units, and State
(and Indian country within the borders
of such State) as calculated by the
Administrator and referenced in the
notice required in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
(6) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subpart and any
revision, made by or submitted to the
Administrator after the promulgation of
the notice of data availability required
in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section
for a control period in a given year, of
any data used in making the
calculations referenced in such notice,
the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances that the
owners and operators are required to
hold in accordance with § 97.506(c)(2)(i)
for such control period shall continue to
be such tonnage equivalents as
calculated by the Administrator and
referenced in such notice required in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section,
except as follows:
(i) If any such data are revised by the
Administrator as a result of a decision
in or settlement of litigation concerning
such data on appeal under part 78 of
this chapter of such notice, or on appeal
under section 307 of the Clean Air Act
of a decision rendered under part 78 of
this chapter on appeal of such notice,
then the Administrator will use the data
as so revised to recalculate the tonnage
equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances that owners and
operators are required to hold in
accordance with the calculation formula
in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control
period with regard to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units, and State (and
Indian country within the borders of
such State) involved, provided that such
litigation under part 78 of this chapter,
or the proceeding under part 78 of this
chapter that resulted in the decision
appealed in such litigation under
section 307 of the Clean Air Act, was
initiated no later than 30 days after
promulgation of such notice required in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) If any such data are revised by the
owners and operators of a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season source and CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit whose designated
representative submitted such data
under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
as a result of a decision in or settlement
of litigation concerning such
submission, then the Administrator will
use the data as so revised to recalculate
the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances that owners
and operators are required to hold in
accordance with the calculation formula
in § 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control
period with regard to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season units, and State (and
Indian country within the borders of
such State) involved, provided that such
litigation was initiated no later than 30
days after promulgation of such notice
required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of
this section.
(iii) If the revised data are used to
recalculate, in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this
section, the tonnage equivalent of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
that the owners and operators are
required to hold for such control period
with regard to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units, and State (and Indian
country within the borders of such
State) involved—
(A) Where the tonnage equivalent of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
that the owners and operators are
required to hold increases as a result of
the use of all such revised data, the
Administrator will establish a new,
reasonable deadline on which the
owners and operators shall hold CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances with the
additional tonnage equivalent in the
assurance account established by the
Administrator for the appropriate
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources,
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and
State (and Indian country within the
borders of such State) under paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. The owners’ and
operators’ failure to hold such
additional tonnage equivalent, as
required, before the new deadline shall
not be a violation of the Clean Air Act.
The owners’ and operators’ failure to
hold such additional tonnage
equivalent, as required, as of the new
deadline shall be a violation of the
Clean Air Act. Each ton of the tonnage
equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances that the owners and
operators fail to hold as required as of
the new deadline, and each day in such
control period, shall be a separate
violation of the Clean Air Act.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(B) For the owners and operators for
which the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances required
to be held decreases as a result of the
use of all such revised data, the
Administrator will record, in all
accounts from which CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances were
transferred by such owners and
operators for such control period to the
assurance account established by the
Administrator for the appropriate
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources,
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and
State (and Indian country within the
borders of such State) under paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, a total amount of
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances held in such assurance
account that the Administrator
determines may be transferred from
such assurance account without causing
the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances held by
such owners and operators in such
assurance account to fall below the
tonnage equivalent required to be held
by such owners and operators in such
assurance account, making any transfers
in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances. If CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances were transferred to
such assurance account from more than
one account, the tonnage equivalent of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
recorded in each such transferor
account will be in proportion to the
percentage of the total tonnage
equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances transferred to such
assurance account for such control
period from such transferor account.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 97.528
[Amended]
43. Section 97.528 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph
(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (a)’’.
■ 44. Section 97.530 is amended by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (b)(1) through (3);
■ b. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (b)(4)(iii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’.
The revisions read as follows:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
§ 97.530 General monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Compliance deadlines. Except as
provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, the owner or operator of a
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit shall
meet the monitoring system certification
and other requirements of paragraphs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
(a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before
the latest of the following dates and
shall record, report, and quality-assure
the data from the monitoring systems
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section on
and after the latest of the following
dates:
(1)(i) For a unit other than a unit
described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section, May 1, 2015; or
(ii) For a unit in the State of Kansas
(or Indian country within the borders of
the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit in another State (or
Indian country within the borders of
another State) during any portion of a
control period in 2015 or 2016, May 1,
2017;
(2) 180 calendar days after the date on
which the unit commences commercial
operation; or
(3) Where data for the unit is reported
on a control period basis under
§ 97.534(d)(2)(ii)(B), and where the
compliance date under paragraph (b)(2)
of this section is not in a month from
May through September, May 1
immediately after the compliance date
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 97.531
[Amended]
45. Section 97.531 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D),
and (d)(3)(v);
■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5).
■ 46. Section 97.534 is amended by:
■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘requirements’’;
■ b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(6) as
paragraph (d)(5)(ii); and
■ d. In paragraph (e)(3), by removing
‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B)’’.
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 97.534
Recordkeeping and reporting.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) The designated representative
shall report the NOX mass emissions
data and heat input data for a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season unit, in an
electronic quarterly report in a format
prescribed by the Administrator, for
each calendar quarter indicated under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section
beginning with the latest of:
(i)(A) For a unit other than a unit
described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of
this section, the calendar quarter
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
75775
covering May 1, 2015 through June 30,
2015; or
(B) For a unit in the State of Kansas
(or Indian country within the borders of
the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit in another State (or
Indian country within the borders of
another State) during any portion of a
control period in 2015 or 2016, the
calendar quarter covering May 1, 2017
through June 30, 2017;
(ii) The calendar quarter
corresponding to the earlier of the date
of provisional certification or the
applicable deadline for initial
certification under § 97.530(b); or
(iii) For a unit that reports on a
control period basis under paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if the
calendar quarter under paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section does not include
a month from May through September,
the calendar quarter covering May 1
through June 30 immediately after the
calendar quarter under paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2)(i) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
unit is subject to the Acid Rain Program
or a CSAPR NOX Annual emissions
limitation or if the owner or operator of
such unit chooses to report on an
annual basis under this subpart, then
the designated representative shall meet
the requirements of subpart H of part 75
of this chapter (concerning monitoring
of NOX mass emissions) for such unit
for the entire year and report the NOX
mass emissions data and heat input data
for such unit for the entire year.
(ii) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
unit is not subject to the Acid Rain
Program or a CSAPR NOX Annual
emissions limitation, then the
designated representative shall either:
(A) Meet the requirements of subpart
H of part 75 of this chapter for such unit
for the entire year and report the NOX
mass emissions data and heat input data
for such unit for the entire year in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of
this section; or
(B) Meet the requirements of subpart
H of part 75 of this chapter (including
the requirements in § 75.74(c) of this
chapter) for such unit for the control
period and report the NOX mass
emissions data and heat input data
(including the data described in
§ 75.74(c)(6) of this chapter) for such
unit only for the control period of each
year.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart CCCCC—CSAPR SO2 Group 1
Trading Program
47. The heading of subpart CCCCC of
part 97 is revised to read as set forth
above.
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75776
§ 97.602
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
[Amended]
48. Section 97.602 is amended by:
a. Relocating all definitions beginning
with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical
locations in the list of definitions;
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration
system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine
generator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘generator’’;
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence
commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2)
introductory text, by adding after
‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by
removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place
§ ’’; and
■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use
of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding
after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’.
■
■
§ 97.604
[Amended]
49. Section 97.604 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing
‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and
■ b. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
■
■
§ 97.606
[Amended]
50. Section 97.606 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7);
■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4),
by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 1’’ before
‘‘allowances’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing
‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place
‘‘subpart B’’.
■
■
§ 97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-asides, and variability
limits.
51. Section 97.610 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading as set forth
above;
■ b. Removing ‘‘SO2 trading budget’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘SO2 Group 1 trading budget’’;
■ c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’;
■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new
unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new
unit set-aside’’;
■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘variability limit’’;
■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text,
by adding ‘‘Group 1’’ before ‘‘trading
budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unitset aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new
unit set-aside’’;
■ g. Adding and reserving paragraphs
(a)(2)(vi) and (a)(11)(vi); and
■ h. In paragraph (c), by adding after
‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, and by
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever it
appears and adding in its place ‘‘setaside’’.
§ 97.611
[Amended]
52. Section 97.611 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30
of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’;
■ d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’;
■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’
and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’;
■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’; and
■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing
‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘of this section’’.
■
■
§ 97.612
[Amended]
53. Section 97.612 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iii)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by
removing ‘‘§ 52.39(d), (e), or (f)’’ and by
adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’;
and
■ h. In paragraph (b)(11), by adding after
‘‘paragraphs (b)(9), (10) and (12)’’ the
words ‘‘of this section’’.
■
■
§ 97.621
[Amended]
54. Section 97.621 is amended by:
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by
removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘periods’’;
■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by
removing ‘‘§ 52.39(e) and (f)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(e) or (f)’’;
and
■ c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the
date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date
15 days after the date’’.
■
■
§ 97.625
[Amended]
55. Section 97.625 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by
adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’
before ‘‘any adjustments’’.
§ 97.628
[Amended]
56. Section 97.628 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph
(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (a)’’.
■
§ 97.630
[Amended]
57. Section 97.630 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of
a CSAPR SO2 Group 1 unit’’, by adding
‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following
dates’’ each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in
its place a colon;
■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) introductory text;
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon
and adding in its place a period;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’.
■
■
§ 97.631
[Amended]
58. Section 97.631 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D),
and (d)(3)(v);
■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3).
■
■
§ 97.634
[Amended]
59. Section 97.634 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘requirements’’;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by
adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final
colon;
■ c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and
■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’
and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by
removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the
third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which
case reporting shall commence in the
quarter covering January 1, 2015
through March 31, 2015’’.
■
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Subpart DDDDD—CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program
60. The heading of subpart DDDDD of
part 97 is revised to read as set forth
above.
■
§ 97.702
[Amended]
61. Section 97.702 is amended by:
a. Relocating all definitions beginning
with ‘‘CSAPR’’ to their alphabetical
locations in the list of definitions;
■ b. In the definition of ‘‘Cogeneration
system’’, by removing ‘‘steam turbine
generator’’ and adding in its place
‘‘generator’’;
■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Commence
commercial operation’’, in paragraph (2)
introductory text, by adding after
‘‘defined in’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ d. In the definition of ‘‘Fossil fuel’’, by
removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ ’’; and
■ e. In the definition of ‘‘Sequential use
of energy’’, in paragraph (2), by adding
after ‘‘from’’ the word ‘‘a’’.
■
■
§ 97.704
[Amended]
62. Section 97.704 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing
‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)(i)’’; and
■ b. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
■
■
§ 97.706
[Amended]
63. Section 97.706 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7);
■ b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4),
by adding ‘‘CSAPR SO2 Group 2’’ before
‘‘allowances’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing
‘‘subpart H’’ and adding in its place
‘‘subpart B’’.
■
■
§ 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian
country new unit set-asides, and variability
limits.
64. Section 97.710 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading as set forth
above;
■ b. Removing ‘‘SO2 trading budget’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘SO2 Group 2 trading budget’’;
■ c. Removing ‘‘SO2 new unit set-aside’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘new unit set-aside’’;
■ d. Removing ‘‘SO2 Indian country new
unit set-aside’’ wherever it appears and
adding in its place ‘‘Indian country new
unit set-aside’’;
■ e. Removing ‘‘SO2 variability limit’’
wherever it appears and adding in its
place ‘‘variability limit’’;
■ f. In paragraph (a) introductory text,
by adding ‘‘Group 2’’ before ‘‘trading
budgets’’, and by removing ‘‘new unit-
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
set aside’’ and adding in its place ‘‘new
unit set-aside’’; and
■ g. In paragraph (c), by adding after
‘‘Each’’ the word ‘‘State’’, by removing
‘‘identified under’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘in’’, by removing ‘‘excludes’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘does not include’’,
and by removing ‘‘set aside’’ wherever
it appears and adding in its place ‘‘setaside’’.
§ 97.711
[Amended]
65. Section 97.711 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iii), by adding after ‘‘November 30
of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ c. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory
text, by adding after ‘‘approved’’ each
time it appears the word ‘‘under’’;
■ d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’;
■ e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’;
■ f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘of this paragraph’’
and adding in its place ‘‘of this section’’;
■ g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding
after ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this chapter’’; and
■ h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing
‘‘of this paragraph’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘of this section’’.
■
■
§ 97.712
[Amended]
66. Section 97.712 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing
‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ ’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing
‘‘paragraph (a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iii)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
■ e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding
after ‘‘paragraph (b)(4)(i)’’ the words ‘‘of
this section’’;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding
after ‘‘November 30 of’’ the word ‘‘the’’;
and
■ g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by
removing ‘‘§ 52.39(g), (h), or (i)’’ and by
adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’.
■
■
§ 97.721
[Amended]
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
c. In paragraph (j), by removing ‘‘the
date’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the date
15 days after the date’’, and by removing
the comma before ‘‘described’’.
■
§ 97.725
Sfmt 4702
[Amended]
68. Section 97.725 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(i)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by
adding ‘‘the calculations incorporating’’
before ‘‘any adjustments’’; and
■ c. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by
removing after ‘‘appropriate’’ the word
‘‘at’’.
■
■
§ 97.728
[Amended]
69. Section 97.728 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘paragraph
(a)(1)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (a)’’.
■
§ 97.730
[Amended]
70. Section 97.730 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the heading of paragraph
(a);
■ b. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
by adding after ‘‘operator’’ the words ‘‘of
a CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit’’, by adding
‘‘the later of’’ before ‘‘the following
dates’’ each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in
its place a colon;
■ c. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) introductory text;
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i)
and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(2), by removing the final semicolon
and adding in its place a period;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ g. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding
after ‘‘§ 75.66’’ the words ‘‘of this
chapter’’.
■
■
§ 97.731
[Amended]
71. Section 97.731 is amended by:
a. Italicizing the headings of
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D),
and (d)(3)(v);
■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘§§ ’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘§ ’’; and
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3).
■
■
§ 97.734
67. Section 97.721 is amended by:
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by
removing ‘‘period’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘periods’’’;
■ b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by
removing ‘‘§ 52.39(h) and (i)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 52.39(h) or (i)’’;
and
■
■
75777
[Amended]
72. Section 97.734 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (b) by adding ‘‘the’’
before ‘‘requirements’’;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text, by removing ‘‘the CSAPR’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘a CSAPR’’, and by
adding ‘‘the later of’’ before the final
colon;
■
■
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
75778
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules
c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
operation before July 1, 2014, the’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘The’’; and
■ d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing
‘‘For a unit that commences commercial
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:12 Dec 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
operation on or after July 1, 2014, the’’
and adding in its place ‘‘The’’, and by
removing ‘‘, unless that quarter is the
third or fourth quarter of 2014, in which
case reporting shall commence in the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
quarter covering January 1, 2015
through March 31, 2015’’.
[FR Doc. 2015–29796 Filed 12–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\03DEP2.SGM
03DEP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75705-75778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29796]
[[Page 75705]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 232
December 3, 2015
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS;
Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 232 / Thursday, December 3, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 75706]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9935-25-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS05
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The primary purpose of this proposal is to address interstate
air quality impacts with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address interstate transport
of ozone pollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) under the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The EPA is proposing to update CSAPR to address interstate
emission transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This proposal
also responds to the July 28, 2015 remand by the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit of certain states' ozone-season
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions budgets established by
CSAPR. This proposal also updates the status of certain states'
outstanding interstate ozone transport obligations with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS, for which CSAPR provided a partial remedy.
This proposal finds that ozone season emissions of NOX
in 23 eastern states affect the ability of downwind states to attain
and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These emissions can be transported
downwind as NOX or, after transformation in the atmosphere,
as ozone. For these 23 eastern states, the EPA proposes to issue
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that generally update the existing
CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for electricity
generating units (EGUs) and implement these budgets via the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season allowance trading program. The EPA would
finalize a FIP for any state that does not have an approved SIP
addressing its contribution by the date this rule is finalized. The EPA
is proposing implementation starting with the 2017 ozone season. In
conjunction with other federal and state actions, these requirements
would assist downwind states in the eastern United States in attaining
and maintaining the 2008 ozone standard.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2016. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before January 4, 2016.
Public hearing. The EPA will be holding one public hearing on the
proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The hearing will be held to
accept oral comments on the proposal. The hearing will be held on
December 17, 2015 in Washington, DC. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m.
EST and will conclude at 8 p.m. EST. Additional information for this
public hearing is available in a separate Federal Register notice and
at https://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/proposed-cross-state-air-pollution-update-rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0500, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. 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: Mr. David Risley, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6204M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9177; email address:
Risley.David@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CAMx Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FR Federal Register
GWh Gigawatt hours
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
Km Kilometer
lb/mmBtu Pounds per Million British Thermal Unit
LNB Low-NOX Burners
mmBtu Pounds per Million British Thermal Unit
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NBP NOX Budget Trading Program
NEI National Emission Inventory
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
OFA Overfire Air
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PPB Parts Per Billion
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SC-CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TSD Technical Support Document
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Major Provisions
C. Benefits and Costs
II. General Information
A. To Whom Does the Proposed Action Apply
III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and Overall Approach for the
Proposed Rule
A. The Interstate Transport Challenge Under the 2008 Ozone
Standard
1. Background on the Overall Nature of the Interstate Ozone
Transport Problem
2. Events Affecting Application of the Good Neighbor Provision
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
B. Proposed Approach To Address Ozone Transport Under the 2008
Ozone NAAQS via FIPS
1. The CSAPR Framework
2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of Transport Obligation
3. Why We Focus on Eastern States
4. Short-Term NOX Emissions
C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season
Emissions Budgets
[[Page 75707]]
D. Addressing the Status of Outstanding Transport Obligations
for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
IV. Legal Authority
A. EPA's Authority for the Proposed Rule
1. Statutory Authority
2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered by the Proposed Rule
V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality and Upwind-State Contributions
A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling Platform
B. Emission Inventories
1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data Sets
2. Development of Emission Inventories for EGUs
3. Development of Emission Inventories for Non-EGU Point Sources
4. Development of Emission Inventories for Onroad Mobile Sources
5. Development of Emission Inventories for Commercial Marine
Category 3 (Vessel)
6. Development of Emission Inventories for Other Nonroad Mobile
Sources
7. Development of Emission Inventories for Nonpoint Sources
C. Air Quality Modeling to Identify Nonattainment and
Maintenance Receptors
D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind States
1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify Upwind State Contributions
2. Application of Screening Threshold
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU NOX Reduction Potential
to Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2008 NAAQS
A. Introduction
B. NOX Mitigation Strategies
1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for Assessment
D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX Reductions, and Air
Quality
E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets
VII. Implementation Using the Existing CSAPR Ozone-Season Allowance
Trading Program and Relationship to Other Rules
A. Background
B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements of the CSAPR Trading
Programs
1. Applicability
2. State Budgets
3. Allocations of Emission Allowances
4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, and Penalties
5. Implementation Approaches for Transitioning the Existing
CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Program to Address Transport for a
Newer NAAQS
6. Compliance Deadlines
7. Monitoring and Reporting and the Allowance Management System
8. Recordation of Allowances
C. Submitting a SIP
1. 2018 SIP Option
2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option
3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the CSAPR Trading Program
4. Submitting a SIP to Participate in CSAPR for States Not
Included in This Proposal
D. Title V Permitting
E. Relationship to Other Emission Trading and Ozone Transport
Programs
1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR Annual Programs, Title IV
Acid Rain Program, NOX SIP Call, 176A Petition, and Other
State Implementation Plans
2. Other Federal Rulemakings
VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Regulatory Text for the CSAPR
FIPs and CSAPR Trading Program
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
I. Executive Summary
The EPA promulgated the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address interstate ozone transport under
the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA
is proposing to update CSAPR to address interstate emission transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is an 8-hour
standard that was set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). See 73 FR 16436
(March 27, 2008).
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce interstate emission
transport that significantly contributes to nonattainment, or
interferes with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern
U.S. To achieve this goal, this proposal would further limit ozone
season (May 1 through September 30) NOX emissions from
electric generating units (EGUs) in 23 eastern states.
Ozone causes a variety of negative effects on human health,
vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic exposure to
ozone is associated with premature mortality and a number of morbidity
effects, such as asthma exacerbation. Ozone exposure can also
negatively impact ecosystems.
Studies have established that ozone occurs on a regional scale
(i.e., thousands of kilometers) over much of the eastern U.S., with
elevated concentrations occurring in rural as well as metropolitan
areas. To reduce this regional-scale ozone transport, assessments of
ozone control approaches have concluded that NOX control
strategies are most effective. Further, studies have found that EGU
NOX emission reductions can be effective in reducing
individual 8-hour peak ozone concentrations and in reducing 8-hour peak
ozone concentrations averaged across the ozone season.\1\ Specifically,
studies indicate that EGUs' emissions, which are generally released
higher in the air column through tall stacks and are significant in
quantity, may disproportionately contribute to long-range transport of
ozone pollution on a per-ton basis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of regional NOX
and VOC emissions to modeled 8-hour ozone concentrations in the
Washington, DC; Philadelphia, PA, and New York City MSAs.
``Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions to ozone and
fine particulate matter-related mortalities in eastern U.S. urban
areas''.
\2\ Butler, et al., ``Response of Ozone and Nitrate to
Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern USA.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
sometimes called the ``good neighbor provision,'' requires states \3\
to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``state'' has the same meaning as provided in CAA
section 302(d) which specifically includes the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA originally finalized CSAPR on July 6, 2011. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.\4\ (See section
IV for a discussion of CSAPR litigation and implementation.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CSAPR did not evaluate the 2008 ozone standard because the
2008 ozone NAAQS was under reconsideration during the analytic work
for the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSAPR provides a 4-step process to address the requirements of the
good neighbor provision for ozone or PM2.5 standards: (1)
Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining clean air standards (i.e., NAAQS); (2)
determining which upwind states contribute to these identified problems
in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the downwind air quality
problems; (3)
[[Page 75708]]
for states linked to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind
emissions that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or
interfere with downwind maintenance of a standard by quantifying
available upwind emission reductions and apportioning upwind
responsibility among linked states; and (4) for states that are found
to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the
identified upwind emissions via regional emissions allowance trading
programs. Each time the ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS are revised,
this process can be applied for the new NAAQS. In this action, the EPA
proposes to apply this 4-step process to update CSAPR with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Application of this process with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS
provides the analytic basis for proposing to further limit ozone season
EGU NOX emissions in 23 eastern states. However, the EPA
seeks comment on this proposal from all states and stakeholders.
The requirements of this proposal are in addition to existing, on-
the-books EPA and state environmental regulations, including the Clean
Power Plan (CPP), which is included in the base case for this proposal.
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power
Plan--a historic and important action on emissions that contribute to
climate change. The CPP reduces carbon pollution from the power sector.
Due to the compliance timeframes of the CPP, the EPA does not
anticipate significant interactions with the CPP and the near-term
ozone season EGU NOX emission reduction requirements under
this proposal. However, states and utilities will be able to make their
compliance plans with both programs in mind. Further discussion of the
CPP is provided later in this proposal.
In addition to reducing interstate ozone transport with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this proposal also addresses the status of
outstanding interstate ozone transport obligations with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS. Under CSAPR, the EPA promulgated FIPs for 25 states
to address ozone transport under the 1997 NAAQS. For 11 of these
states,\5\ in the 2011 final rule, CSAPR quantified ozone season
NOX emission reductions that were not necessarily sufficient
to eliminate all significant contribution to downwind nonattainment or
interference with downwind maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
downwind. Relying on base case modeling completed for this proposed
rulemaking, this action proposes to find that the reductions required
by those 11 FIPs were in fact sufficient to eliminate such significant
contributions to downwind air quality problems for that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. (See CSAPR
Final Rule, 76 FR at 48220, and the CSAPR Supplemental Rule, 76 FR
at 80760, December 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action also responds to the July 28, 2015 opinion of the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) remanding
without vacatur 11 states' CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 795 F.3d
118, 129-30, 138 (EME Homer City II). This action proposes to respond
to that remand by replacing the budgets invalidated by the D.C. Circuit
for nine states and by removing two states from the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets for Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. The EPA proposes to remove Florida and
South Carolina from the CSAPR ozone-season NOX trading
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone
NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's effects on
public health and welfare. This proposal to reduce interstate emission
transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is a separate and
distinct regulatory action and is not meant to address the CAA's good
neighbor provision with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS final rule.
The Clean Air Act gives states the responsibility to address
interstate pollution transport through good neighbor State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). The EPA supports state efforts to submit
good neighbor SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and has shared information
with states to facilitate such SIP submittals. However, in the event
that good neighbor SIPs are not submitted or cannot be approved, this
rulemaking proposes Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), as required
under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, to establish and implement EGU
NOX reductions identified in this rule.
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published a rule finding that 24 states
\7\ failed to make complete submissions that address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate transport of
pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015)
(effective August 12, 2015). The finding action triggered a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to address the good neighbor
provision for these states by August 12, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The states included in this finding of failure to submit
are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA would finalize a FIP for a state that we find has failed to
submit a complete good neighbor SIP or for which we issue a final rule
disapproving its good neighbor SIP.
The EPA proposes to align implementation of this proposed rule with
relevant attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as required by the
D.C. Circuit's decision North Carolina v. EPA.\8\ The EPA's final 2008
Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule \9\ revised the attainment deadline
for ozone nonattainment areas currently designated as moderate from
December 2018 to July 2018 in accordance with the D.C. Circuit's
decision in NRDC v. EPA.\10\ Because July 2018 falls during the 2018
ozone season, the 2017 ozone season will be the last full season from
which data can be used to determine attainment of the NAAQS by the July
2018 attainment date. We believe that North Carolina compels the EPA to
identify upwind reductions and implementation programs to achieve these
reductions, to the extent possible, for the 2017 ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA must
coordinate interstate transport compliance deadlines with downwind
attainment deadlines).
\9\ 80 FR 12264, 12268; 40 CFR 51.1103.
\10\ 777 F.3d 456, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to apply the first and second steps of the CSAPR 4-step
process to interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA used
air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality
monitoring sites to 2017. The EPA evaluated these modeling projections
for the air quality monitoring sites and considered current ozone
monitoring data at these sites to identify receptors that are
anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA then used air quality modeling to evaluate contributions
from upwind states to these downwind receptors.
CSAPR and previous federal transport rules, such as the
NOX SIP Call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)--
discussed in detail below--addressed collective contributions of ozone
pollution from states in the eastern U.S. These rules did not address
contributions in the 11 western
[[Page 75709]]
contiguous United States.\11\ There may be additional criteria to
evaluate regarding collective contribution of transported air pollution
in the West, such as those raised in EPA-state meetings to discuss
approaches for determining how emissions in upwind states impact air
quality in downwind states.\12\ Given that the near-term 2017
implementation timeframe constrains the opportunity to conduct
evaluations of additional criteria, the EPA proposes to focus this
rulemaking on eastern states. This focus would not relieve western
states of obligations to address interstate transport under the Act.
The EPA and western states, working together, would continue to
evaluate interstate transport on a case-by-case basis. While the EPA
proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states, we seek comment on
whether to include western states in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. (or the
West) consists of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
\12\ For example, EPA-State meetings held in Research Triangle
Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To apply the third step of the 4-step process, the EPA assessed
ozone season NOX reductions that are achievable for the 2017
ozone season. This assessment reveals that there is significant EGU
NOX reduction potential that can be achieved for 2017 at
reasonable cost, which would make meaningful and timely improvements in
ozone air quality. The EPA applied a multi-factor test to evaluate EGU
NOX reduction potential for 2017 and proposes to quantify
EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets reflecting emission
reductions from cost-effective pollution control measures achievable
for the 2017 ozone season (estimated to obtain NOX
reductions at a uniform cost of approximately $1,300 per ton).
The EPA is not proposing to quantify non-EGU emission reductions to
reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at this time
because we are uncertain that significant NOX mitigation is
achievable from non-EGUs for the 2017 ozone season. The EPA will
continue to evaluate whether non-EGU emission reductions can be
achieved on a longer time-frame at a future date. However, as explained
later in this document, this proposal seeks comment on a preliminary
evaluation of stationary non-EGU NOX mitigation potential
and on allowing a state to include legacy NOX SIP Call non-
EGUs in the CSAPR trading program by adopting a SIP revision that the
EPA would approve as modifying the CSAPR trading program provisions
with regard to that state.
To evaluate full elimination of a state's significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, EGU and non-EGU
ozone season NOX reductions should both be evaluated. To the
extent air quality impacts persist after implementation of the
NOX reductions identified in this rulemaking, a final
judgment on whether the proposed EGU NOX reductions
represent a full or partial elimination of a state's good neighbor
obligation for the 2008 NAAQS is therefore subject to an evaluation of
the contribution to interstate transport from additional non-EGU
emission sectors.
However, the EPA believes that it is beneficial to implement,
without further delay, EGU NOX reductions since they are
achievable in the near term. Generally, notwithstanding that additional
reductions may be required to fully address the states' interstate
transport obligations, the proposed NOX emission reductions
are needed for these states to eliminate their significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and needed for downwind states with ozone nonattainment areas
that are required to attain the standard by 2018.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The proposed requirements for one state, North Carolina,
would fully eliminate that state's significant contribution to
downwind air quality problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the EPA also notes that section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA only requires upwind states to prohibit
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. It does not
shift to upwind states the full responsibility for ensuring that all
areas in other states attain and maintain the NAAQS. Downwind states
also have control responsibilities because, among other things, the Act
requires each state to adopt enforceable plans to attain and maintain
air quality standards. The requirements established for upwind states
through this proposed rule will supplement downwind states' local
emission control strategies that, in conjunction with the certainty on
maximum allowable upwind state EGU emissions that this proposed rule
would provide, promote attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
To meet the fourth step of the 4-step process (i.e.,
implementation) the proposed FIPs contain enforceable measures
necessary to achieve the emission reductions in each state. The
proposed FIPs would require power plants in affected states (i.e.,
states that significantly contribute to ozone transport in the east) to
participate in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowance trading
program (as modified by the proposed changes described elsewhere in
this notice). CSAPR's trading programs and EPA's prior emissions
trading programs provide a proven implementation framework for
achieving emission reductions. In addition to providing environmental
certainty (i.e., a cap on emissions), these programs also provide
regulated sources with flexibility in choosing compliance strategies.
By using the existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowance
trading program, the EPA is proposing to use an implementation
framework that was shaped by notice and comment in previous rulemakings
and reflects the evolution of these programs in response to court
decisions. Further, this program is familiar to the EGUs that will be
regulated under this rule, which means that monitoring, reporting, and
compliance will be done as it already is under CSAPR's current ozone-
season and annual programs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR ozone season
requirement under this proposal. Kansas currently participates in
the CSAPR NOX and SO2 annual programs. The
remaining 22 states were included in the original CSAPR ozone-season
program as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These FIP requirements, if finalized, would begin with the 2017
ozone season and would continue for subsequent ozone seasons to ensure
that upwind states included in this proposed rule meet their Clean Air
Act obligation to address interstate emissions transport with respect
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 2017 and future years. To the extent that
emissions in an included state would otherwise exceed the promulgated
emission level, these good neighbor EGU emissions limits will ensure
that future emissions are consistent with states' ongoing good neighbor
obligations. To the extent that emissions in an included state would be
reduced for other reasons, for example planned lower-NOX
emitting generation coming online, then those actions will help the
state comply with its good neighbor requirements.
Generally, for states that would be affected by one of the FIPs
proposed in this action and that are already included in the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program to address interstate ozone
transport for the 1997 NAAQS, this action proposes to revise the
existing part 97 regulations that define that program to incorporate
lower EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for each of the
affected states in order to reduce ozone transport for the 2008
[[Page 75710]]
ozone NAAQS.\15\ If finalized, compliance with these lower emissions
budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would also satisfy compliance with the
existing higher emissions budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Therefore,
the EPA proposes to replace the existing CSAPR emissions budgets (i.e.
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS) for the affected states with the lower
emissions budgets proposed to reduce ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Compliance with the final lower emissions budgets for the 2008
ozone NAAQS would supersede compliance with the CSAPR NOX
ozone-season budgets for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This action would
therefore respond to the remand of EME Homer City II with respect to
the NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for nine states \16\
by replacing the budgets declared invalid by the court with revised
budgets designed to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR ozone season
requirement under this proposal. The remaining 22 states were
included in the original CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
\16\ The EPA proposes to replace emissions budgets for Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed FIPs, if finalized, would not limit states'
flexibility in meeting their CAA requirements, as any state included in
this proposed rule can submit a good neighbor SIP at any time that, if
approved by the EPA, could replace the FIP for that state.
Additionally, CSAPR already provides states with the option to submit
abbreviated SIPs to customize the methodology for allocating
NOX ozone-season allowances while participating in the
ozone-season trading program and we propose to continue that approach
in this rule.
The EPA therefore proposes revisions to the Code of Federal
Regulations, specifically 40 CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB (federal CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program); 40 CFR 52.38(b) (rules on
replacing or modifying the federal CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program with a SIP); 40 CFR 52.540, 52.882, and 52.2140 (adding
or limiting requirements for EGUs in certain individual states to
participate in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program);
and 40 CFR 78.1 (modifying the list of decisions subject to
administrative appeal procedures under part 78) to address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, various minor
corrections are proposed to these CFR and other sections of parts 52,
78, and 97 relating to the CSAPR ozone-season and annual trading
programs.
The 23 eastern states for which the EPA proposes to promulgate FIPs
to reduce interstate ozone transport as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS are
listed in Table I-1.
Table I-A-1--Proposed List of Covered States for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For eastern states for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs in this
action, the EPA notes that updates to the modeling for the final rule,
made based on comments received on the proposal, could change the
analysis as to which states significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance. In this regard, the final modeling could
result in additional states being included in the final rule.
Therefore, the EPA provides all data and methods necessary for all
eastern states to comment on all aspects of this proposal in the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis TSD. This information includes EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for all eastern states,
in the event that final rule modeling demonstrates that additional
states significantly contribute to downwind air quality problems.
The EPA notes that the annual PM2.5 NAAQS was updated
after CSAPR was promulgated (78 FR 306, January 15, 2013). However,
this rulemaking does not address the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
The EPA acknowledges that, in EME Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit also
remanded without vacatur the CSAPR phase 2 SO2 emissions
budgets as to four states. 795 F.3d at 129, 138. This proposal does not
address the remand of these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 annual
emissions budgets. The EPA intends to address the remand of the phase 2
SO2 annual emissions budgets separately. The existing CSAPR
emissions budgets and implementation programs (CSAPR SO2
annual and NOX annual requirements), which address
interstate transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
continue to apply at this time.
B. Major Provisions
The major provision of this action are described in the remainder
of this preamble and organized as follows: Section III describes the
human health and environmental context, the EPA's overall approach for
addressing interstate transport, and the EPA's response to the remand
of certain CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions budgets; section
IV describes the EPA's legal authority for this action; section V
describes the air quality modeling platform and emission inventories
that the EPA used to identify downwind receptors of concern and upwind
state ozone contributions to those receptors; section VI describes the
EPA's proposed approach to quantify upwind state obligations in the
form of EGU NOX emissions budgets; section VII details the
implementation requirements including key elements of the CSAPR
allowance trading program and deadlines for compliance; section VIII
describes the expected costs, benefits, and other impacts of this
proposed rule; section IX discusses proposed changes to the existing
regulatory text for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR trading programs; and
section X discusses the statutes and executive orders affecting this
rulemaking. The EPA invites comment on this proposed rulemaking.
C. Benefits and Costs
The proposed rule would achieve near-term emission reductions from
the power sector, lowering ozone season NOX in 2017 by
85,000 tons, compared to baseline 2017 projections without the rule.
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' we have estimated the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule. Estimates here are subject to uncertainties discussed
further in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the docket. The
estimated net benefits of the proposed rule at a 3 percent discount
rate are $700 million to $1.2 billion (2011$). The non-monetized
benefits include reduced ecosystem effects and reduced visibility
impairment. Discussion of the costs and benefits of the proposal is
provided in preamble section VIII, below, and in the RIA,
[[Page 75711]]
which is found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The EPA's
estimate of the proposed rule's costs and quantified benefits is
summarized in Table I.C-1, below.
Table I.C-1--Summary of Compliance Costs, Monetized Benefits, and
Monetized Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule for 2017 (2011$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts at 3 percent
Description discount rate ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Compliance Costs\ a\............ $93.
Monetized benefits \b\..................... 700 to 1,200.
Net benefits (benefits-costs).............. 620 to 1,200.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total annualized social costs are estimated at a 3 percent discount
rate. The social costs presented here reflect the EGU ozone season
costs of complying with the proposed FIPs.
\b\ Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate.
The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits
associated with reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5. It is important
to note that the monetized benefits and co-benefits include many but
not all health effects associated with pollution exposure. Benefits
are shown as a range reflecting studies from Krewski et al. (2009)
with Smith et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2008).
II. General Information
A. To whom does this action apply?
This proposed rule affects EGUs, and regulates the following
groups:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry group NAICS *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation............ 221112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 97.504. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
III. Air Quality Issues Addressed and Overall Approach for the Proposed
Rule
A. The Interstate Transport Challenge Under the 2008 Ozone Standard
1. Background on the Overall Nature of the Interstate Ozone Transport
Problem
Interstate transport of NOX emissions poses significant
challenges with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. and
thus presents a threat to public health and welfare.
a. Nature of Ozone and the Ozone NAAQS
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is
created by chemical reactions between NOX and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from
electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor vehicles, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of
NOX and VOC.
Because ground-level ozone formation increases with temperature and
sunlight, ozone levels are generally higher during the summer.
Increased temperature also increases emissions of volatile man-made and
biogenic organics and can indirectly increase NOX emissions
as well (e.g., increased electricity generation for air conditioning).
The 2008 primary and secondary ozone standards are both 75 parts
per billion (ppb) as an 8-hour level. Specifically, the standards
require that the 3-year average of the fourth highest 24-hour maximum
8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 75 ppb.
b. Ozone Transport
Studies have established that ozone formation, atmospheric
residence, and transport occurs on a regional scale (i.e., thousands of
kilometers) over much of the eastern U.S., with elevated concentrations
occurring in rural as well as metropolitan areas. While substantial
progress has been made in reducing ozone in many urban areas, regional-
scale ozone transport is still an important component of peak ozone
concentrations during the summer ozone season.
The EPA has previously concluded in the NOX SIP Call,
CAIR, and CSAPR that, for reducing regional-scale ozone transport, a
NOX control strategy would be most effective. NOX
emissions can be transported downwind as NOX or, after
transformation in the atmosphere, as ozone. As a result of ozone
transport, in any given location, ozone pollution levels are impacted
by a combination of local emissions and emissions from upwind sources.
The transport of ozone pollution across state borders compounds the
difficulty for downwind states in meeting health-based air quality
standards (i.e., NAAQS).
Recent assessments of ozone, for example those conducted for the
October 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA-452/
R-15-007) continue to show the importance of NOX emissions
on ozone transport. This analysis is in the docket for this proposal
and can be also found at the EPA's Web site at: https://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001ria.pdf.
There are five general categories of NOX emission
sources: EGUs, non-EGU point, onroad mobile, non-road mobile, and area.
Studies have found that EGU NOX emission reductions can be
[[Page 75712]]
effective in reducing individual 8-hour peak ozone concentrations and
in reducing 8-hour peak ozone concentrations averaged across the ozone
season. For example, a study that evaluates the effectiveness on ozone
concentrations of EGU NOX reductions achieved under the
NOX Budget Trading Program shows that regulating
NOX emissions has been highly effective in reducing both
ozone and dry-NO3 concentrations during the ozone season.
Further, this study indicates that EGU emissions, which are generally
released higher in the air column through tall stacks and are
significant in quantity, may disproportionately contribute to long-
range transport of ozone pollution on a per-ton basis.\17\ Another
study shows that EGU NOX emissions can contribute between 5
ppb and 25 ppb to average 8-hour peak ozone concentrations in mid-
Atlantic metropolitan statistical areas.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Butler, et al., ``Response of Ozone and Nitrate to
Stationary Source Reductions in the Eastern USA''.
\18\ Summertime Zero-Out Contributions of regional
NOX and VOC emissions to modeled 8-hour ozone
concentrations in the Washington, DC; Philadelphia, PA, and New York
City MSAs. ``Contributions of regional air pollutant emissions to
ozone and fine particulate matter-related mortalities in eastern
U.S. urban areas''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous regional ozone transport efforts, including the
NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR, required ozone season
NOX reductions from EGUs to address interstate transport of
ozone. The EPA has taken comment on regulating EGU NOX
emissions to address interstate ozone transport in the notice-and-
comment process for these rulemakings. The EPA received no significant
adverse comments in any of these proposals regarding the rules' focus
on ozone season EGU NOX reductions to address interstate
ozone transport.
As described later in this notice, the EPA's analysis finds that
the power sector continues to be capable of making NOX
reductions at reasonable cost that reduce interstate transport with
respect to ground-level ozone. EGU NOX emission reductions
can be made in the near-term under this proposal by fully operating
existing EGU NOX post-combustion controls (i.e., Selective
Catalytic Reduction and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction)--including
optimizing NOX removal by existing, operational controls and
turning on and optimizing existing idled controls; installation of (or
upgrading to) state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls; and
shifting generation to units with lower NOX emission rates.
Further, additional assessment reveals that these available EGU
NOX reductions would make meaningful and timely improvements
in ozone air quality.
The Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision requires states and the
EPA to address interstate transport of air pollution that affects
downwind states' ability to attain and maintain NAAQS. Other provisions
of the CAA, namely sections 179B and 319(b), are available to deal with
NAAQS exceedances not attributable to the interstate transport of
pollution covered by the good neighbor provisions but caused by
emission sources outside the control of a downwind state. These
provisions address international transport and exceptional events,
respectively.19 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The EPA recognizes that both in-state and upwind wildfires
may contribute to monitored ozone concentrations. The EPA encourages
all states to consider how the appropriate use of prescribed fire
may benefit of public safety and health by resulting in fewer ozone
exceedances for both the affected state and their neighboring
states.
\20\ The CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations,
specifically the Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.14, allow for
the exclusion of air quality monitoring data from regulatory
determinations when events, including wildland fires, contribute to
NAAQS exceedances or violations if they meet certain requirements,
including the criterion that the event be not reasonably
controllable or preventable. Wildland fires can be of two types:
Wildfire (unplanned) and prescribed fire (planned). Under the
Exceptional Events Rule, wildfires are considered, by their nature,
to be not reasonably controllable or preventable. Because prescribed
fires on wildland are intentionally ignited for resource management
purposes, to meet the not reasonably controllable or preventable
criterion, they must be conducted under a certified Smoke Management
Program or employ basic smoke management practices. Both types of
wildland fire must also satisfy the other rule criteria. The EPA
will soon propose revisions to the Exceptional Events Rule and
release a draft guidance document, which applies the proposed rule
revisions to wildfire events that could influence ozone
concentrations. These actions, which the EPA intends to finalize in
the summer of 2016, further clarify the treatment of wildland fires
under the Exceptional Events Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Health and Environmental Effects
Exposure to ambient ozone causes a variety of negative effects on
human health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic
exposure to ozone is associated with premature mortality and a number
of morbidity effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In ecosystems, ozone
exposure causes visible foliar injury, decreases plant growth, and
affects ecosystem community composition. See the EPA's November 2014
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA-452/P-14-
006), in the docket for this proposal and available on the EPA's Web
site at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf, for
more information on the human health and welfare and ecosystem effects
associated with ambient ozone exposure.
2. Events Affecting Application of the Good Neighbor Provision for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS
The 2008 revisions to the ozone NAAQS were promulgated on March 12,
2008. See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final Rule,
73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The revision of the NAAQS, in turn,
triggered a 3-year deadline of March 12, 2011, for states to submit SIP
revisions addressing infrastructure requirements under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), including the good neighbor provision. During
this 3-year SIP development period, on September 16, 2009, the EPA
announced \21\ that it would reconsider the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To reduce
the workload for states during the interim period of reconsideration,
the EPA also announced its intention to propose staying implementation
of the 2008 standards for a number of the requirements. On January 6,
2010, the EPA proposed to revise the 2008 NAAQS for ozone from 75 ppb
to a level within the range of 60 to 70 ppb. See 75 FR 2938 (January
19, 2010). The EPA indicated its intent to issue final standards based
upon the reconsideration by summer 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Fact Sheet. The EPA to reconsider Ozone Pollution
Standards. https://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/O3_Reconsideration_FACT%20SHEET_091609.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR, in response to the DC
Circuit's remand of the EPA's prior federal transport rule, CAIR. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR addresses ozone transport under the
1997 ozone NAAQS, but does not address the 2008 ozone standard, because
the 2008 ozone NAAQS was under reconsideration during the analytic work
for the rule.
On September 2, 2011, consistent with the direction of the
President, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget returned the
draft final 2008 ozone rule EPA had developed upon reconsideration to
the Agency for further consideration.\22\ In view of this direction and
the timing of the agency's ongoing periodic review of the ozone NAAQS
required under CAA section 109 (as announced on September 29, 2008),
the EPA decided to coordinate further proceedings on its voluntary
reconsideration rulemaking of the 2008
[[Page 75713]]
ozone standard with that of its ongoing periodic review of the ozone
NAAQS.\23\ Implementation for the original 2008 ozone standard was
renewed. However, during this time period, a number of legal
developments pertaining to the EPA's promulgation of CSAPR created
uncertainty surrounding the EPA's statutory interpretation and
implementation of the good neighbor provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, August 2014, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829pa.pdf, at 1-9.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA addressing several legal challenges to
CSAPR and holding, among other things, that states had no obligation to
submit good neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first quantified each
state's good neighbor obligation.\24\ According to that decision, the
submission deadline for good neighbor SIPs under the CAA would not
necessarily be tied to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
While the EPA disagreed with this interpretation of the statute and
sought review of the decision in the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme
Court, the EPA complied with the D.C. Circuit's ruling during the
pendency of its appeal. In particular, the EPA indicated that,
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion, it would not at that time
issue findings that states had failed to submit SIPs addressing the
good neighbor provision.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
\25\ See, e.g., Memorandum from the Office of Air and Radiation
former Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy to the EPA Regions,
``Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,'' November 19,
2012; 78 FR 65559 (November 1, 2013) (final action on Florida
infrastructure SIP submission for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); 78 FR
14450 (March 6, 2013) (final action on Tennessee infrastructure SIP
submissions for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS); Final Rule, Findings of
Failure To Submit a Complete State Implementation Plan for Section
110(a) Pertaining to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, 78 FR 2884 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the EPA's petition
for certiorari.\26\ During 2013 and early 2014, as the EPA awaited a
decision from the Supreme Court, the EPA initiated efforts and
technical analyses aimed at identifying and quantifying state good
neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As part of this effort,
the EPA solicited stakeholder input and also provided states with, and
requested input on, emissions inventories for 2011 (78 FR 70935,
November 27, 2013) and inventory projections for 2018 (79 FR 2437,
January 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857
(2013) (granting the EPA's and other parties' petitions for
certiorari).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's
EME Homer City opinion on CSAPR and held, among other things, that
under the plain language of the CAA, states must submit SIPs addressing
the good neighbor provision within 3 years of promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA first provides guidance,
technical data, or rulemaking to quantify the state's obligation.\27\
Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed that states have an obligation in the
first instance to address the good neighbor provision after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding that also applies to
states' obligation to address transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court holding affirmed that states were required to
submit SIPs addressing the good neighbor provision with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS by March 12, 2011. To the extent that states have
failed to submit SIPs to meet this statutory obligation, then the EPA
has not only the authority, but the obligation, to promulgate FIPs to
address the CAA requirement.
Following the remand of the case to the D.C. Circuit, the EPA
requested that the court lift the CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR
compliance deadlines by three years. On October 23, 2014, the D.C.
Circuit granted the EPA's request. The EPA issued an interim final rule
to revise the regulatory deadlines in CSAPR to reflect the three-year
delay in implementation. Accordingly, CSAPR phase 1 implementation
began in 2015 and phase 2 will begin in 2017.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2015, the EPA's final 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements
Rule \29\ revised the attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment areas
currently designated as moderate to July 2018. In order to demonstrate
attainment by the deadline, the demonstration would have to be based on
design values calculated using 2015 through 2017 ozone season data,
since the July 2018 deadline does not afford a full ozone season of
measured data. The EPA established this deadline in the 2015 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule after previously establishing a deadline of December
31, 2018, that was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 80 FR 12264, 12268 (Mar. 6, 2015); 40 CFR 51.1103.
\30\ 777 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion regarding
CSAPR on remand from the Supreme Court, EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d
118. The court largely upheld CSAPR, but remanded to EPA without
vacatur certain states' emissions budgets for reconsideration. This
proposal responds to the remand of certain CSAPR NOX ozone-
season emissions budgets to the EPA for reconsideration; see section C
below. Regarding the remand of CSAPR phase 2 SO2 annual
emissions budgets as to four states, this proposal does not address
that particular aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion. The EPA intends to
address the remand of the phase 2 SO2 annual emissions
budgets separately.
B. Proposed Approach To Address Ozone Transport Under the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS via FIPs
1. The CSAPR Framework
CSAPR establishes a 4-step process to address the requirements of
the good neighbor provision.\31\ The EPA proposes to follow the same
steps for this rulemaking with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These
steps are: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have
problems attaining or maintaining clean air standards (i.e., NAAQS);
(2) determining which upwind states contribute to these identified
problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the downwind air
quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air quality
problems, identifying upwind emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a standard by
quantifying available upwind emission reductions and apportioning
upwind responsibility among linked states; and (4) for states that are
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the
identified upwind emissions via regional emissions allowance trading
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See CSAPR, Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1--In the original CSAPR, downwind air quality problems were
assessed using modeled future air quality concentrations for a year
aligned with attainment deadlines for the NAAQS considered in that
rulemaking. The assessment of future air quality conditions generally
accounts for on-the-books emission reductions \32\ and the most up-to-
date forecast of future emissions in the absence of the transport
policy being evaluated (i.e., base case conditions). The locations of
[[Page 75714]]
downwind air quality problems are identified as those with receptors
that are projected to be unable to attain (i.e., nonattainment
receptor) or maintain (i.e., maintenance receptor) the standard. This
proposal follows this same general approach. However, the EPA also
proposes to consider current monitored air quality data to further
inform the projected identification of downwind air quality problems
for this proposal. Further details and application of step one for this
proposal are described in section V of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Since CSAPR was designed to replace CAIR, CAIR emissions
reductions were not considered ``on-the-books.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2--The original CSAPR used a screening threshold of one
percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states that were ``linked'' to
downwind air pollution problems. States were identified as needing
further evaluation for actions to address transport if their air
quality impact \33\ was greater than or equal to the threshold for at
least one downwind problem receptor (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance
receptor identified in step 1). We evaluated a given state's
contribution based on the average relative downwind impact calculated
over multiple days. States whose air quality impacts to all downwind
problem receptors were below this threshold did not require further
evaluation for actions to address transport--that is, these states were
determined to make insignificant contributions to downwind air quality
problems and therefore have no emission reduction obligations under the
good neighbor provision. The EPA used this threshold because much of
the ozone nonattainment problem in the eastern half of the United
States results from relatively small contributions from a number of
upwind states. Use of the one percent threshold for CSAPR is discussed
in the preambles to the proposed and final CSAPR rules. See 75 FR 45237
(Aug. 2, 2010); 76 FR 48238, (Aug. 8, 2011). The EPA proposes to use
this same approach for this rule. Application of step two for this
proposal is described in section V of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ For ozone the impacts would include those from volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, and from all sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 3--For states that are linked in step 2 to downwind air
quality problems, the original CSAPR used a multi-factor test to
evaluate emission reductions available in upwind states by application
of uniform cost thresholds. The EPA evaluated NOX reductions
that were available in upwind states by applying a marginal cost of
NOX emissions to entities in these states. This approach, in
essence, simulated placing an economic value on NOX
emissions and evaluated emission reduction potential that was cost-
effective under this constraint. The EPA evaluated NOX
reduction potential, cost, and downwind air quality improvements
available at several cost thresholds in the multi-factor test. This
evaluation quantified the magnitude of emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS
downwind and apportioned upwind responsibility among linked states, an
approach upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City.\34\
The EPA proposes to apply this approach to identify NOX
emission reductions necessary to reduce interstate transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, updated to also explicitly consider over-control. For
this proposal, the multi-factor test is also used to evaluate possible
over-control by evaluating if an upwind state is linked solely to
downwind air quality problems that are resolved at a given cost
threshold, or if upwind states would reduce their emissions at a given
cost threshold to the extent that they would no longer meet or exceed
the 1% air quality contribution threshold. This evaluation of cost,
NOX reductions, and air quality improvements, including its
consideration of potential over-control, results in the EPA's
determination of upwind emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind.
Next, emissions budgets are determined. Emissions budgets are remaining
allowable emissions after the elimination of emissions identified as
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the standard downwind. The EPA's assessment of
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance and development of EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets is described in section VI of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1606-07 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 4--Finally, the original CSAPR used allowance trading programs
to implement the necessary emission reductions. Specifically, the
emissions budgets identified in step 3 were implemented via a tradable
allowance program. Emissions allowances were issued to units covered by
the trading program and the allowances can be turned in at the close of
each compliance period to account for a specified amount of ozone
season EGU NOX emissions. Additionally, the original CSAPR
included variability limits, which define the amount by which
collective emissions within a state may exceed the level of the budgets
in a given year to account for variability in EGU operations. CSAPR set
assurance levels equal to the sum of each state's emissions budget plus
its variability limit. The original CSAPR included assurance provisions
that help to assure that state emissions remain below the assurance
levels in each state by requiring additional allowance surrenders in
the instance that emissions in the state exceed the state's assurance
level. This limited interstate trading approach is responsive to
previous court decisions (see discussion in section IV of this
preamble) and has been upheld in subsequent litigation regarding CSAPR.
The EPA proposes to apply this approach to reduce interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Implementation using the CSAPR allowance
trading program is described in section VII of this notice.
2. Partial Versus Full Resolution of Transport Obligation
Given the unique circumstances surrounding the implementation of
the 2008 ozone standard that have delayed state and EPA efforts to
address interstate transport, at this time the EPA is focusing its
efforts on the immediately available and cost-effective emission
reductions that are achievable by the 2017 ozone season.
a. Partial Remedy Under Proposed FIPs
This rulemaking proposes to establish (or revise currently
established) FIPs for 23 eastern states under the good neighbor
provision of the CAA. These FIPs contain requirements for EGUs in these
states to reduce ozone season NOX emissions for the 2017
ozone season. As noted in section VI, the EPA has identified important
EGU emission reductions that are achievable starting for the 2017 ozone
season in each of the covered states through actions such as turning on
and operating existing pollution controls. These readily available
emission reductions will assist downwind states to attain and maintain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will provide human health and welfare benefits
through reduced exposure to ozone pollution.
While these reductions are necessary to assist downwind states
attain and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and are necessary to address
good neighbor obligations for these states, the EPA acknowledges that
they may not be sufficient to fully address these states' good neighbor
obligations.\35\ With respect to the 2008 ozone standard, the
[[Page 75715]]
EPA has generally not attempted to quantify the ozone season
NOX reductions that may be necessary to eliminate all
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance in other states. Given the time constraints for
implementing NOX reduction strategies, the EPA believes that
implementation of a full remedy may not be achievable for 2017, even
though a partial remedy is achievable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The proposed requirements for one state, North Carolina,
would fully eliminate that state's significant contribution to
downwind air quality problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate full elimination of a state's significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, EGU and non-EGU
ozone season NOX reductions should both be evaluated.
However, the EPA is not proposing to quantify non-EGU emissions
reductions to address interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS at this time because: (1) There is greater uncertainty in the
non-EGU emission inventory estimates than for EGUs; and (2) there
appear to be few non-EGU reductions that could be accomplished by the
beginning of the 2017 ozone season. This is discussed further in
section VI of this proposal and in the Non-EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD. We intend to continue to collect information
and undertake analysis for potential future emissions reductions at
non-EGUs that may be necessary to fully quantify states' significant
contributions in a future action.
Because the reductions proposed in this action are EGU-only and
because EPA has focused the policy analysis for this proposal on
reductions available by 2017, for most states they represent a first,
partial step to addressing a given upwind state's significant
contribution to downwind air quality impacts for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Generally, a final determination of whether the proposed EGU
NOX reductions represent a full or partial elimination of a
state's good neighbor obligation for the 2008 NAAQS is subject to an
evaluation of the contribution to interstate transport from additional
emission sectors, such as non-EGUs. However, the EPA believes that it
is beneficial to implement, without further delay, EGU NOX
reductions that are achievable in the near term. The proposed
NOX emission reductions are needed (although they may not be
all that is needed) for these states to eliminate their significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA's current statutory deadlines to promulgate
FIPs extend until 2017 for most states, and the EPA will remain mindful
of those deadlines as it evaluates what further steps may be necessary
to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA seeks
comment on possible future steps that may be necessary to resolve the
remainder of the good neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone standard.
The EPA has shared information with states to facilitate the
development of the ozone transport SIPs.\36\ The EPA encourages state
SIP development and will continue to assist states in developing
transport SIPs regardless of whether they are covered by this proposed
FIP. Where a state would be covered by this proposed FIP, the EPA may
be able to partially approve SIPs that include controls on EGU
emissions that achieve ozone season NOX emission reductions
and/or that establish EGU NOX ozone emissions budgets
approximately equivalent to those identified in this proposal as
achievable by 2017. (This is discussed in more detail in Section VII.)
In these SIPS, states could also demonstrate that they are achieving
the same level of emissions reductions through non-EGU source measures
as they would achieve under the EGU budgets established in the FIP. For
example, a SIP could set EGU budgets, but allow emission reductions
from non-EGU sources as a compliance option. EPA also seeks comment on
methods it can use to ensure that any non-EGU reductions are
incremental to the base case, permanent, and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ On January 22, 2015, the EPA issued a memo with preliminary
air quality modeling data that characterized interstate ozone
transport projected to 2018. On April 8, 2015, the EPA held a
workshop that continued a discussion with states on the path forward
for addressing interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On August 4, 2015, we published a NODA with updated modeling that
states could use to support development of transport SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Potential for Full Remedy Under SIPs
The EPA also notes that many states have already submitted, or are
currently developing, SIP submittals to address the good neighbor
provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone standard, and expects that some
may assert that the state plan fully addresses the state's good
neighbor obligation.
The EPA anticipates that those SIPs intending to fully address the
state's good neighbor obligations and for which the state is seeking
approval may fall into one of two categories:
(1) The SIP concludes that the state is meeting its good neighbor
obligation without need for additional NOX reductions. This
SIP could include an adequate demonstration, using EPA or state-
generated analytical results, which supports the state's conclusion
that the state contributes insignificant amounts to downwind
nonattainment or maintenance problems in other states. The EPA would
generally expect to propose full approval of these SIPs.
(2) The SIP demonstrates that the state will timely achieve
reductions that fully address its significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance in downwind states. This
demonstration could include an assessment of how all emissions source
sectors contribute to the state's contribution and how these sectors
are controlled in that state. States wishing to seek full approval of
good neighbor SIPs should contact their appropriate regional office.
Guidance on developing such SIPs is outside the scope of this action,
but the EPA intends to work closely with any state that is interested
in pursuing this option.
3. Why We Focus on Eastern States
CSAPR and previous federal transport rules, such as the
NOX SIP Call and CAIR, were designed to address collective
contributions of ozone pollution from states in the eastern U.S. These
rules did not address contributions in the 11 western contiguous United
States.\37\ The EPA's air quality modeling that supports this proposed
rule includes data for the western states. This assessment shows that
there are problem receptors in the West to which western states
contribute amounts greater than or equal to the screening threshold
used to evaluate transport across eastern states (i.e., 1 percent of
the NAAQS). However, there may be additional criteria to evaluate
regarding transported air pollution in the West when evaluating upwind
states' contributions to downwind air quality impacts, such as those
discussed in EPA-state meetings to discuss approaches for determining
how emissions in upwind states impact air quality in downwind
states.\38\ Given that the near-term 2017 implementation timeframe
constrains the opportunity to conduct a further evaluation of western
states, the EPA proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states.
This focus would not relieve western states of obligations to address
interstate transport under the Act. The EPA and states working together
would continue to evaluate interstate transport in the western states
on a case-by-case basis. The EPA would also continue to engage
[[Page 75716]]
with western states on air quality modeling analyses and the
implications of those analyses for interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. (or the
West) consists of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and the eastern U.S. (or East)
consists of the remaining states in the contiguous U.S.
\38\ For example, EPA-State meetings held in Research Triangle
Park, NC on April 8, 2013 and Denver, Colorado on April 17, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states,
we seek comment on whether to include western states in this rule. The
EPA notes that analyses developed to support this proposal, including
air quality modeling and the EPA's assessment of EGU NOX
mitigation potential, contain data that could be useful for states in
developing SIPs or could be used to develop FIPs, where necessary.
The EPA seeks comment on the data provided for western states,
including emissions inventories, ozone concentration modeling,
contribution modeling, and EPA's assessment of EGU NOX
reduction potential.\39\ These data are available in the docket for
this proposal. The EPA also solicits comment on whether to promulgate
FIPs to address interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
western states, either in this rulemaking or in a subsequent
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability (80 FR 46271) requesting comment on the air quality
modeling platform and air quality modeling results that are being
used for this proposed rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA
requested comment on the data and methodologies related to the 2011
and 2017 emissions and the air quality modeling to project 2017
concentrations and contributions. Comments received on that data via
the NODA will be considered for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Short-Term NOX Emissions
In eastern states, the highest measured ozone days tend to occur
within the hottest days, weeks, or months of the summer. On many high
ozone days, there is higher demand for electricity (for instance, to
run air conditioners). In general and technical discussions with
representatives and officials of eastern states in April 2013 and April
2015, and in several letters to the EPA, officials from the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) \40\ states suggested that EGU emissions
transported from upwind states may disproportionally affect downwind
ozone concentrations on peak ozone days in the eastern U.S. These
representatives asked that the EPA consider additional ``peak day''
limits on EGU NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The OTR was established by the CAA amendments of 1990 to
facilitate addressing the ozone problem on a regional basis and
consists of the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and
northern Virginia. 42 U.S.C. 7511c, CAA section 184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states have also asked the EPA to consider whether existing
emission controls are being turned off for short periods (e.g.,
multiple days) within the ozone season, for example during hot weeks.
These states assert that emissions from short-term idling of controls
may contribute to downwind ozone NAAQS exceedances in the eastern U.S.
These states suggest that sub-seasonal limits on EGU NOX
emissions would reduce ozone formation that might be attributable to
short-term idling of NOX controls.
The EPA seeks comment on whether or not short-term (e.g., peak-day)
EGU NOX emissions disproportionately impact downwind ozone
concentrations, and if they do, then what EGU emission limits (e.g.,
daily or monthly emission rates or differential allowance surrender
ratios on high ozone days) would be reasonable complements to the
proposed seasonal CSAPR requirement to mitigate this impact.
C. Responding to the Remand of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets
As noted above, in EME Homer City II, the D.C. Circuit declared
invalid the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season emissions budgets
of 11 states, holding that those budgets over-control with respect to
the downwind air quality problems to which those states were linked for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 795 F.3d at 129-30, 138. As to ten of these
states, the court held that EPA's 2014 modeling conducted to support
the RIA for CSAPR demonstrated that air quality problems at the
downwind locations to which those states were linked would resolve by
phase 2 of the CSAPR program without further transport regulation
(either CAIR or CSAPR). Id. at 129-30. With respect to Texas, the court
held that the record reflected that the ozone air quality problems to
which the state was linked could be resolved at a lower cost threshold.
Id. The court therefore remanded those budgets to EPA for
reconsideration consistent with the court's opinion. Id. at 138. The
court instructed the EPA to act ``promptly'' in addressing these issues
on remand. Id. at 132.
The court's decision explicitly applies to 11 state budgets
involved in that litigation: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Id. at 129-30, 138. EPA is proposing in this
rulemaking to promulgate FIPs for nine of those states to address
interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. The proposed FIPs incorporate revised
emissions budgets that would supplant and replace the budgets
promulgated in the CSAPR rule to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the same
budgets remanded by the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration. Further, as
proposed in this rule, these proposed budgets would be effective for
the 2017 ozone season, the same period in which the phase 2 budgets
that were invalidated by the court are currently scheduled to become
effective. Therefore, this proposed action provides an appropriate and
timely response to the court's remand by replacing the budgets
promulgated in the CSAPR to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which were
declared invalid by the D.C. Circuit, with budgets developed to address
the revised and more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The methodology for developing the proposed budgets to
address the 2008 ozone NAAQS is described in more detail in Sections
VI and VII below. Section VI also includes an evaluation, as
instructed by the court in EME Homer City II, to affirm that the
proposed budgets do not over-control with respect to downwind air
quality problems identified in this rule. 795 F.3d at 127-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that it is able to propose addressing the D.C.
Circuit's remand of CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions budgets
because the agency was already performing analysis and policy
development for this proposal, which is directly applicable to this
aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion.
Separately, various petitioners filed legal challenges in the D.C.
Circuit to a supplemental rule that added five states to the CSAPR
ozone-season trading program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011). See Public
Service Company of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023 (D.C. Cir., filed Jan.
13, 2012). The case was held in abeyance during the pendency of the
litigation in EME Homer City. The case remains pending in the D.C.
Circuit as of the date of signature of this proposed rule.\42\ The EPA
notes that this rulemaking also proposes to promulgate FIPs for all
five states added to CSAPR in the supplemental rule: Iowa, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. The proposed FIPs incorporate
revised emissions budgets that would supplant and replace the budgets
promulgated in the supplemental CSAPR rule to address the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for these five states
[[Page 75717]]
and would be effective for the 2017 ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ In 2012, the EPA also finalized two rules making certain
revisions to CSAPR. 77 FR 10324 (Feb. 21, 2012); 77 FR 34830 (June
12, 2012). Various petitioners filed legal challenges to these rules
in the D.C. Circuit, and the cases were also held in abeyance
pending the litigation in EME Homer City. See Wisconsin Public
Service Corp. v. EPA, No. 12-1163 (D.C. Cir., filed Apr. 6, 2012);
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1346 (D.C. Cir., filed
Aug. 9, 2012). The cases currently remain pending in the D.C.
Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the two remaining ozone-season states affected by this portion
of the EME Homer City II decision, Florida and South Carolina, the EPA
is not proposing in this action to promulgate FIPs because the air
quality modeling performed to support the proposal does not indicate
that these states are linked to any identified downwind nonattainment
or maintenance receptors with respect to the 2008 ozone standard.
Inherently then, because the 2008 ozone NAAQS is more stringent than
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, this modeling also does not indicate that Florida
or South Carolina are linked to any remaining air quality concerns with
respect to the 1997 ozone standard for which the states were regulated
in CSAPR.
Accordingly, in order to address the Court's remand with respect to
these two states' interstate transport responsibility under the 1997
ozone standard, the EPA proposes to remove these states from the CSAPR
ozone-season trading program beginning in 2017 when the phase 2 ozone-
season emissions budgets were scheduled to be implemented.
The EPA notes that because the proposed rule modeling was performed
prior to the D.C. Circuit's issuance of EME Homer City II, that
modeling assumed in its baseline for all states the emission reductions
associated with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets. In the final
rule modeling, the EPA will make any additional changes to the
emissions inventories or modeling platform as may be justified based on
comments received on the modeling performed for the proposed rule. In
the event that air quality modeling conducted for the final rule
demonstrates that either Florida or South Carolina are projected to
significantly (e.g., greater than or equal to 1% of the NAAQS)
contribute to an air quality problem with respect to the 2008 ozone
standard in the absence of a CSAPR-related emissions budget in place
for those states, the EPA instead proposes to finalize revised budgets
(presented with this rulemaking for comment) for whichever of those
states may be identified as linked to such air quality problems rather
than remove those states from the CSAPR ozone-season trading program.
The EPA has calculated emissions budgets for Florida and South Carolina
that we are proposing to apply to those states if, and only if, the
final rule air quality modeling identifies a linkage as just described.
These proposed budgets are developed using the same methods applied to
the 23 states that the EPA proposed to regulate in this action. These
methods are described in section VI of this proposal and the methods
and resulting emissions budgets are provided in the Ozone Transport
Policy Analysis TSD.
The EPA seeks comment on this approach with respect to addressing
the remand as to Florida and South Carolina, including the proposed
budgets that would apply to those states if a linkage is identified,
which are available in the docket.
Additionally, the EPA notes Florida and South Carolina may be
relying upon emissions reductions that result from now-remanded
emissions budgets in Florida and South Carolina to satisfy statutory
obligations other than the interstate transport requirements. However,
Florida and South Carolina may have an interest in submitting SIPs to
continue their participation in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program in order to meet other Clean Air Act requirements.
Likewise, to the extent that the final modeling indicates that other
states included in the remand of the CSAPR phase 2 NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets are not linked to any identified
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors with respect to the
2008 ozone standard, they would not be included in the final FIPs but
they may be interested in continuing to participate in the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program in order to meet other
Clean Air Act requirements. The EPA seeks comment on whether to allow
Florida, South Carolina, and other similarly situated states (if any)
to continue their participation in the CSAPR NOX ozone-
season program through voluntary SIPs that would retain the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets, contingent upon review
and approval by the EPA.
The D.C. Circuit also remanded without vacatur the CSAPR
SO2 annual emissions budgets for four states (Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas) for reconsideration. 795 F.3d at
129, 138. This proposal does not address the remand of these CSAPR
phase 2 SO2 annual emissions budgets. The EPA intends to
address the remand of the phase 2 SO2 annual emissions
budgets separately. The existing CSAPR annual emissions budgets and
implementation programs (CSAPR SO2 annual and NOX
annual requirements), which address interstate transport for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, continue to apply at this time.
D. Addressing Outstanding Transport Obligations for the 1997 Ozone
NAAQS
In the original CSAPR, the EPA noted that the reductions for 11
states may not be sufficient to fully eliminate all significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance for
certain downwind areas with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\43\ The 11
states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.\44\ In the
original CSAPR, the EPA's analysis projected continued nonattainment
and maintenance problems at downwind receptors to which these upwind
states were linked after implementation of the CSAPR trading programs.
Specifically, the persistent ozone problems were expected in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Houston, Texas; and Allegan, Michigan according to
the remedy case modeling conducted for the final rule. At that time the
EPA did not address whether additional ozone season NOX
emission reductions would be needed in these states to fully resolve
the good neighbor obligation under the CAA with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS beyond the EGU requirements promulgated in CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See CSAPR Final Rule, 76 FR at 48220, and the CSAPR
Supplemental Rule, 76 FR at 80760, December 27, 2011.
\44\ The EPA acknowledges that, despite its conclusion in CSAPR
that the air quality problems to which Texas was linked in the
original CSAPR were not fully resolved, the court concluded in EME
Homer City II that the NOX ozone-season emissions budget
finalized for Texas resulted in over-control as to the ozone air
quality problems to which the state was linked. 795 F.3d at 129-30.
As discussed below in section V, this rule proposes to respond to
the remand of Texas's NOX ozone-season emissions budget
by promulgating a new budget to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA has also evaluated Texas's contribution to any remaining air
quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. [Text may be
revised to reflect ongoing litigation.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate whether additional emission reductions would be needed
in these 11 states to address the states' full good neighbor obligation
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA reviewed the 2017 baseline air
quality modeling conducted for this proposal, which includes emission
reductions associated with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets.
The updated 2017 air quality modeling shows that the predicted
average DVs and maximum DVs for 2017 are below the level of the 1997
ozone NAAQS for the downwind receptors of concern that the 11 states
were linked to in the original CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further,
the 2017 air quality modeling shows that there are no other
nonattainment or
[[Page 75718]]
maintenance receptors to which these areas would be linked with respect
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This conclusion demonstrates that no further
emission reductions are required to address the interstate transport
obligations of these states with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
therefore EPA finds that the original CSAPR emissions budgets satisfy
these states' full obligation to address interstate ozone transport
under the good neighbor provision of the CAA as to that NAAQS.
Therefore, we propose to find that the original CSAPR FIPs fully
satisfy those 11 states' good neighbor CAA obligations regarding the
emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in other states.
IV. Legal Authority
A. EPA's Authority for the Proposed Rule
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by the
CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Specifically, sections 110 and
301 of the CAA provide the primary statutory bases for this proposal.
The most relevant portions of section 110 are subsections 110(a)(1),
110(a)(2), and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(c)(1).
Section 110(a)(1) provides that states must make SIP submissions
``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air
quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and that these SIP
submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement'' of such NAAQS.\45\ The statute directly imposes on states
the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other
than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
\46\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584, 1601 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has historically referred to SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the applicable requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Section
110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required content of these submissions. It
includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan''
submission must address.\47\ All states, regardless of whether the
state includes areas designated as nonattainment for the relevant
NAAQS, must have SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2), including provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) described
further below and which are the focus of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ EPA's general approach to infrastructure SIP submissions is
explained in greater detail in individual notices acting or
proposing to act on state infrastructure SIP submissions and in
guidance. See, e.g., Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) (Sept. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at
any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (1) Finds that a state
has failed to make a required SIP submission, (2) finds a SIP
submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C), or
(3) disapproves a SIP submission, unless the state corrects the
deficiency through a SIP revision that the Administrator approves
before the FIP is promulgated.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor
provision,'' provides the basis for this proposed action. It requires
that each state SIP shall include provisions sufficient to ``prohibit[]
. . . any source or other type of emissions activity within the State
from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will--(I) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has previously issued three rules interpreting and
clarifying the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for states in
the eastern half of the United States. These rules, and the associated
court decisions addressing these rules, provide important guidance
regarding the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, addressed the
good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\50\ The rule required 22 states and the District of
Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that
contribute to ozone nonattainment. The EPA set a NOX ozone-
season budget for each affected state, essentially a cap on ozone
season NOX emissions in the state. Sources in the affected
states were given the option to participate in a regional cap-and-trade
program, known as the NOX Budget Trading Program (NBP). The
NOX SIP Call was largely upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S.
904 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005,
addressed both the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone standards under the
good neighbor provision.\51\ CAIR required SIP revisions in 28 states
and the District of Columbia to ensure that certain emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and/or NOX--important precursors of
regionally transported PM2.5 (SO2 and
NOX) and ozone (NOX)--were prohibited. Like the
NOX SIP Call, states were given the option to participate in
a regional cap-and-trade program to satisfy their SIP obligations. When
the EPA promulgated the final CAIR in May 2005, the EPA also issued a
national rule finding that states had failed to submit SIPs to address
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, given that states were required
by the CAA to have submitted section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for those
standards by July 2000.\52\ This finding of failure to submit triggered
a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs to address interstate
transport, and on March 15, 2006, the EPA promulgated FIPs to ensure
that the emission reductions required by CAIR would be achieved on
schedule.\53\ CAIR was remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit in North
Carolina, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d
1176. For more information on the legal considerations of CAIR and the
D.C. Circuit holding in North Carolina, refer to the preamble of the
final CSAPR rule.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
\52\ 70 FR 21147 (May 12, 2005).
\53\ 71 FR 25328 (April 28, 2006).
\54\ 76 FR 48208, 48217 (Aug. 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR to address the issues raised by
the remand of CAIR and additionally to address the good neighbor
provision for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\55\ CSAPR requires 28
states to reduce SO2 emissions, annual NOX
emissions, and/or ozone season NOX emissions that
significantly contribute to other states' nonattainment or interfere
with other states' abilities to maintain these air quality standards.
To accomplish implementation aligned with the applicable attainment
deadlines, the EPA promulgated FIPs for each of the 28 states covered
by CSAPR. The FIPs implement regional cap-and-trade programs to achieve
the necessary reductions. States can submit good
[[Page 75719]]
neighbor SIPs at any time that, if approved by the EPA, would replace
the CSAPR FIP for that state. As discussed below, CSAPR was the subject
of decisions by both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, which
largely upheld the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 76 FR 48208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating
CSAPR and holding, among other things, that states had no obligation to
submit good neighbor SIPs until the EPA had first quantified each
state's good neighbor obligation.\56\ The implication of this decision
was that the EPA did not have authority to promulgate FIPs as a result
of states' failure to submit or EPA's disapproval of such SIPs. The EPA
sought review, first with the D.C. Circuit en banc and then with the
Supreme Court. While the D.C. Circuit declined to consider the EPA's
appeal en banc,\57\ on January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the
EPA's petition for certiorari.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31
(D.C. Cir. 2012).
\57\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C.
Cir. January 24, 2013), ECF No. 1417012 (denying the EPA's motion
for rehearing en banc).
\58\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857
(2013) (granting the EPA's and other parties' petitions for
certiorari).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing
the D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City opinion on CSAPR and held, among
other things, that under the plain language of the CAA, states must
submit SIPs addressing the good neighbor provision within 3 years of
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, regardless of whether the EPA
first provides guidance, technical data or rulemaking to quantify the
state's obligation.\59\ Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed that states
have an obligation in the first instance to address the good neighbor
provision after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, a holding that
also applies to states' obligation to address interstate transport for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Supreme Court remanded the litigation to the
D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on
CSAPR regarding the remaining legal issues raised by the Petitioners on
remand from the Supreme Court, EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d 118. This
decision largely upheld EPA's approach to addressing interstate
transport in CSAPR, leaving the rule in place and affirming EPA's
interpretation of various statutory provisions and EPA's technical
decisions. The decision also remands the rule without vacatur for
reconsideration of EPA's emissions budgets for certain states. In
particular and as discussed in more detail in section III, the court
declared invalid the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets of 11 states, holding that those budgets over-control
with respect to the downwind air quality problems to which those states
were linked for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The court's decision explicitly
applies to 11 states: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Id. at 129-30, 138. The court also remanded without vacatur
the SO2 annual emissions budgets for four states (Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas) for reconsideration. Id. at 129,
138. The court instructed the EPA to act ``promptly'' in addressing
these issues on remand. Id. at 132.
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also gives the Administrator of the
EPA general authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to
carry out her functions under the Act.\60\ Pursuant to this section,
the EPA has authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements.
In this action, among other things, the EPA is clarifying the
applicability of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by identifying
NOX emissions in certain states that must be prohibited
pursuant to this section with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
promulgated in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, the EPA is proposing to use its authority under
sections 110 and 301 to promulgate FIPs that establish or revise EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for 23 eastern states to
mitigate their significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in another state. As described in more
detail later in this notice, generally the EPA is proposing to update
each affected state's FIP, including revising the existing CSAPR
budgets.\61\ The EPA is also proposing to respond to the court's remand
in EME Homer City II with respect to the remanded NOX ozone-
season emissions budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ One state, Kansas, would have a new CSAPR ozone season
requirement under this proposal. The remaining 22 states were
included in the original CSAPR ozone-season program as to the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FIP Authority for Each State Covered by the Proposed Rule
a. Status of State Good Neighbor SIPs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
As discussed above, all states have an obligation to submit SIPs
that address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) within 3 years
of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. With respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit SIPs addressing the good
neighbor provision by March 12, 2011. If the EPA finds that a state has
failed to submit a SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if EPA disapproves a good neighbor SIP,
then the EPA has not only the authority but the obligation, pursuant to
section 110(c)(1), to promulgate a FIP to address the CAA requirement
within 2 years of the finding or disapproval.
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published a rule finding that 24 states
failed to make complete submissions that address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate transport of
pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015)
(effective August 12, 2015). The finding action triggered a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to address the good neighbor
provision for these states by August 12, 2017. The states included in
this finding of failure to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Since the EPA issued the findings notice, EPA has received a SIP
submission addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS from the state of Maine on which the EPA has not yet proposed
action.
Several additional states--Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, and the
District of Columbia--have previously submitted SIPs to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To
the extent that the EPA has not finalized action on these submitted
SIPs, these states can evaluate their submissions in light of this
proposal and the actions we are taking to reduce interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to a judgment issued on
May 15, 2015, the
[[Page 75720]]
EPA is required to take final action on the interstate transport SIPs
for Nebraska and North Dakota by January 29, 2016, and for Maryland,
Texas, Ohio and Indiana by June 7, 2016.\62\ In the event that the EPA
finalizes disapproval or partial disapproval of any of these SIPs, that
action would trigger the EPA's FIP authority to implement the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for those states.
Alternatively, if any of these states withdraws its 2008 ozone
interstate transport SIP submittal, the EPA plans to issue a separate
notice of finding of failure to submit for these states and will
finalize FIPs as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Judgment, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case 4:14-cv-05091-
YGR (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2013, the EPA finalized action on the State of
Kentucky's SIP submission addressing, among other things, the good
neighbor provision requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\63\ The EPA
disapproved the submission as to the good neighbor requirements. In the
notice, the EPA explained that the disapproval of the good neighbor
portion of the state's infrastructure SIP submission did not trigger a
mandatory duty for the EPA to promulgate a FIP to address these
requirements.\64\ Citing the D.C. Circuit's decision EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), the 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 the EPA
first defines a state's obligations pursuant to that section.\65\
Therefore, because a good neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone
standard was not at that time required, the EPA indicated that its
disapproval action would not trigger an obligation for the EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport requirements.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013).
\64\ Id. at 14683.
\65\ Id.
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2013, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review of
the EPA's action based on the Agency's conclusion that the FIP clock
was not triggered by the disapproval of Kentucky's good neighbor
SIP.\67\ As described above, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
issued a decision reversing and vacating the D.C. Circuit's decision in
EME Homer City. Following the Supreme Court decision, the EPA
requested, and the court granted, vacatur and remand of the portion of
the EPA's final action that determined that the FIP obligation was not
triggered by the disapproval.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546 (6th Cir., filed Apr.
30, 2013).
\68\ Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546, Document No.
74-1 (Mar. 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this notice, the EPA is proposing to correct the portion of the
disapproval notice indicating that the FIP clock would not be triggered
by the SIP disapproval. The EPA believes that the EPA's obligation to
develop a FIP was triggered on the date of the judgment issued by the
Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City, June 2, 2014, and the EPA is
obligated to issue a FIP at any time within two years of that date. The
EPA does not believe that the FIP obligation was triggered as of the
date of the SIP disapproval because the controlling law as of that date
was the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, which held that states
had no obligation to submit a SIP and the EPA had no authority to issue
a FIP until the EPA first quantified each state's emission reduction
obligation under the good neighbor provision. Accordingly, the most
reasonable conclusion is that the EPA's FIP obligation was triggered
when the Supreme Court clarified the state and federal obligations with
respect to the good neighbor provision. Thus, the EPA proposes to find
that the FIP obligation was triggered as of June 2, 2014, and that the
EPA is obligated to promulgate a FIP that corrects the deficiency by
June 2, 2016.
b. States Submitting Transport SIPs Before FIP Is Finalized
The EPA recognizes that some states are currently developing SIP
submissions or revising their submitted SIPs to address the good
neighbor provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA
encourages SIP development and will continue to assist states in
developing transport SIPs. As noted above, the EPA is subject to a
court order requiring final action on certain state SIPs by January 29,
and June 7, 2016.
The fact that the EPA is proposing a FIP for any state does not
suggest that the EPA has determined that the state's submittal is not
approvable. If EPA finalizes approval of a state's good neighbor SIP
before the FIP is applied, the FIP that is now being proposed for that
state would no longer be necessary.
Further, the EPA notes that the remedy being proposed in this
notice are not the only means a state has to mitigate interstate ozone
transport under the good neighbor provision. States could submit
measures that strengthen their current SIPs and achieve reductions that
are similar to, or more efficacious in eliminating significant
transport than, those that would be achieved by the FIPs proposed in
this action. The EPA strongly encourages such strengthening actions. If
a state submits a SIP that is approved (in whole or in part) by the EPA
via notice-and-comment rulemaking and that achieves ozone season
NOX emission reductions and/or establishes EGU
NOX ozone emissions budgets approximately equivalent to
those identified by EPA as achievable by 2017, the EPA does not
anticipate subjecting the state to the EPA's partial remedy in this FIP
action.
V. Analyzing Downwind Air Quality and Upwind-State Contributions
In this section, we describe the air quality modeling performed to
(1) identify locations where we expect there to be nonattainment or
maintenance problems for 8-hour ozone for the 2017 analytic year chosen
for this proposal, and (2) quantify the contributions from
anthropogenic emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone
concentrations at monitoring sites projected to be in nonattainment or
have maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Air quality
modeling to assess the health and welfare benefits of the emissions
reductions expected to result from this proposal is described in
section VIII.
This section includes information on the air quality modeling
platform used in support of the proposed rule with a focus on the base
year and future base case emission inventories. We also provide the
projection of 2017 ozone concentrations and the interstate
contributions for 8-hour ozone. The Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document (AQM TSD) in the docket for this proposed rule
contains more detailed information on the air quality modeling aspects
of this rulemaking.
On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
(80 FR 46271) requesting comment on the air quality modeling platform
and air quality modeling results that are being used for this proposed
rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA requested comment on the data
and methodologies related to the 2011 and 2017 emissions and the air
quality modeling to project 2017 concentrations and contributions.
Comments received on that data via the NODA will be considered for the
final rule.
A. Overview of Air Quality Modeling Platform
The EPA performed air quality modeling for three emissions
scenarios: A 2011 base year, a 2017 baseline, and a 2017 illustrative
control case that
[[Page 75721]]
reflects the emission reductions expected from the proposed rule.\69\
We selected 2011 as the base year to reflect the most recent National
Emissions Inventory (NEI). In addition, the meteorological conditions
during the summer of 2011 were generally conducive for ozone formation
across much of the U.S., particularly the eastern U.S. For example, as
described in the AQM TSD, an analysis of meteorological-adjusted trends
in seasonal mean ozone for the period 2000 through 2012 indicates that,
on a regional basis, the summer of 2011 was typical, in terms of the
presence of conditions conducive to ozone formation, of high ozone
years in the eastern U.S. Additional analyses of meteorological
conditions during the summer of 2011 in comparison to conditions during
several other recent years can be found in the AQM TSD. The use of
meteorological data representing conditions that are conducive for
ozone formation is consistent with the EPA's modeling guidance for
attainment demonstrations.\70\ As noted above, we selected 2017 as the
projected analysis year to coincide with the attainment date for
moderate areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used the 2017 baseline
emissions in our air quality modeling to identify future nonattainment
and maintenance locations and to quantify the contributions of
emissions from upwind states to 8-hour ozone concentrations at downwind
locations. We used the air quality modeling of the 2017 baseline and
2017 illustrative control case emissions to estimate the air quality
impacts and health benefits of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ The 2017 illustrative control case is relevant to the EPA's
policy analysis discussed in section VI and to the benefits and
costs assessment discussed in section VIII of this preamble. It is
not used to identify nonattainment or maintenance receptors or
quantify the contributions from upwind states to these receptors.
\70\ ``Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
December 2014. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx) version 6.11 \71\ to simulate pollutant concentrations for the
2011 base year and the 2017 future year scenarios. CAMx is a grid cell-
based, multi-pollutant photochemical model that simulates the formation
and fate of ozone and fine particles in the atmosphere. The CAMx model
contains certain probing tools including source apportionment
techniques that are designed to quantify the contribution of emissions
from various sources and areas to ozone in other downwind locations.
The CAMx model applications were performed for a modeling region (i.e.,
modeling domain) that covers the contiguous 48 states, the District of
Columbia, and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico using a horizontal
resolution of 12 x 12 km. A map of the air quality modeling domain is
provided in the AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions Version
6.11 User's Guide. Environ International Corporation. Novato, CA.
December, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011-based air quality modeling platform includes 2011 base
year emissions and future year projections of these emissions and 2011
meteorology for air quality modeling with CAMx. In the remainder of
this section, we provide an overview of (1) the 2011 and 2017 emissions
inventories, (2) the methods for projecting future nonattainment and
maintenance along with a list of 2017 baseline nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the eastern U.S., (3) the approach to
developing metrics to measure interstate contributions to 8-hour ozone,
and (4) the predicted interstate contributions to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance in the eastern U.S. We also identify
which predicted interstate contributions are at or above the CSAPR
screening threshold, which we are proposing to apply for regulation of
interstate transport of ozone for purposes of the 2008 ozone standard.
B. Emission Inventories
The EPA developed emission inventories for this proposal including
emission estimates for EGUs, non-EGU point sources, stationary nonpoint
sources, onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, wild fires,
prescribed fires, and for biogenic emissions that are not the result of
human activities. The EPA's air quality modeling relies on this
comprehensive set of emission inventories because emissions from
multiple source categories are needed to model ambient air quality and
to facilitate comparison of model outputs with ambient measurements.
To prepare the emission inventories for air quality modeling, the
EPA processed the emission inventories using the Sparse Matrix Operator
Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System version 3.6.5 to produce the
gridded, hourly, speciated, model-ready emissions for input to the CAMx
air quality model. Additional information on the development of the
emission inventories and on data sets used during the emissions
modeling process are provided in the TSD ``Preparation of Emissions
Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform,''
hereafter known as the ``Emissions Modeling TSD.'' This TSD is
available in the docket for this proposed rule and at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/#2011.
The EPA published Federal Register notices on November 27, 2013 (78
FR 70935), and January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2437), to take comment on the
2011 and 2018 \72\ emission modeling platforms, including data and
documentation on the methods used to prepare the emission inventories
for air quality modeling. Comments were collected for the 2011 and 2018
emissions modeling platforms under the dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0743 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0809, respectively. Comments from those notices that
were accepted by the EPA have been incorporated into the emission
modeling data and procedures for this proposal as documented in the
Emissions Modeling TSD. As indicated above, the updated emission
inventories, methodologies, and data were provided in a Notice of Data
Availability published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46271). Comments received on the proposal data will be considered for
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ During the 2013 and 2014 pre-proposal comment periods for
the modeling platforms, the attainment deadline for the downwind
areas was established by regulation as December 2018. The 2008 Ozone
NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule revised the attainment deadline for
ozone nonattainment areas currently designated as Moderate from
December 2018 to July 2018, which means attainment determinations
have to be based on design values calculated using 2015 through 2017
ozone season data. Therefore, in its July 2015 NODA and in this
proposal, the EPA has adjusted the future year modeling to be for
the year 2017 rather than 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Foundation Emission Inventory Data Sets
The EPA developed emission data representing the year 2011 to
support air quality modeling of a base year from which future air
quality could be forecasted. The EPA used the 2011 National Emission
Inventory (NEI) version 2 (2011NEIv2), released in March 2015, as the
primary basis for the U.S. inventories supporting the 2011 air quality
modeling. Documentation on the 2011NEIv2 is available in the 2011
National Emissions Inventory, version 2 TSD available in the docket for
this proposed rule and at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2011inventory.html#inventorydoc. The future base case scenario modeled
for
[[Page 75722]]
2017 includes a representation of changes in activity data and of
predicted emission reductions from on-the-books actions, including
planned emission control installations and promulgated federal measures
that affect anthropogenic emissions.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Biogenic emissions and emissions from wild fires and
prescribed fires were held constant between 2011 and 2017 since (1)
these emissions are tied to the 2011 meteorological conditions and
(2) the focus of this rule is on the contribution from anthropogenic
emissions to projected ozone nonattainment and maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Development of Emission Inventories for EGUs
Annual NOX and SO2 emissions for EGUs in the
2011NEIv2 are based primarily on data from continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS), with other EGU pollutants estimated using
emission factors and annual heat input data reported to the EPA. For
EGUs without CEMS, the EPA used data submitted to the NEI by the
states. For more information on the details of how the 2011 EGU
emissions were developed and prepared for air quality modeling, see the
Emissions Modeling TSD.
The EPA projected future 2017 baseline EGU emissions using version
5.14 of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (https://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling). IPM, developed by ICF Consulting, is a state-of-
the-art, peer-reviewed, multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear
programming model of the contiguous U.S. electric power sector. It
provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity
dispatch, and emission control strategies while meeting energy demand
and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints.
EPA has used IPM for over two decades to better understand power sector
behavior under future business-as-usual conditions and to evaluate the
economic and emission impacts of prospective environmental policies.
The model is designed to reflect electricity markets as accurately as
possible. The EPA uses the best available information from utilities,
industry experts, gas and coal market experts, financial institutions,
and government statistics as the basis for the detailed power sector
modeling in IPM. The model documentation provides additional
information on the assumptions discussed here as well as all other
model assumptions and inputs.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Detailed information and documentation of EPA's Base Case,
including all the underlying assumptions, data sources, and
architecture parameters can be found on EPA's Web site at:
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/powersectormodeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPM version 5.14 base case accounts for comments received as a
result of the NODAs released in 2013 and 2014 (including control
configuration) as well as updated environmental regulations. This
projected base case accounts for the effects of the finalized MATS \75\
and CSAPR rules, New Source Review settlements, and on-the-books state
rules through 2014 \76\ impacting SO2, NOX,
directly emitted particulate matter, and CO2, and final
actions the EPA has taken to implement the Regional Haze Rule. The
EPA's IPM base case also includes two federal non-air rules affecting
EGUs: The Cooling Water Intake Structure (Clean Water Act section
316(b)) rule and the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule.
Documentation of IPM version 5.14 is in the docket and available online
at www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court reversed on narrow
grounds a portion of the D.C. Circuit decision upholding the MATS
rule, finding that EPA erred by not considering cost when
determining that regulation of EGUs was ``appropriate'' pursuant to
CAA section 112(n)(1). 135 S.Ct. 192 (2015). The case was remanded
to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings, and the MATS rule
currently remains in place.
\76\ For any specific version of IPM there is a cutoff date
after which it is no longer possible to incorporate updates into the
input databases. For version 5.14, that cutoff date was November
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the receptor and contribution analyses for this proposal were
underway, the EPA released an updated IPM base case, version 5.15, and
the final Clean Power Plan (CPP).\77\ In order to reflect all on-the-
books policies as well as the most current power sector modeling data,
the EPA performed an assessment, described in section V-D below, to
reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15 with the CPP in the base case for this
proposal. The EPA plans to use this base case, including the final CPP,
for its modeling analysis for the final rule. However, EPA's analysis
for the final rule may include updated or different assumptions about
the inclusion of the CPP and the CSAPR phase 2 NOX ozone-
season or SO2 annual emissions budgets for those states with
budgets that were declared invalid and remanded to the EPA by the D.C.
Circuit's decision in EME Homer City II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 FR 64662
(Oct. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In projecting future 2017 baseline EGU emissions, the EPA adjusted
the 2018 IPM version 5.14 base case results to account for three
categories of differences between 2017 and 2018. The categories are:
(1) Adjusting NOX emissions for units with SCRs in 2018 but
that are assumed not to operate or be installed in 2017; (2) adding
NOX emissions for units that are retiring in 2018 but are
projected to operate in 2017; and (3) adjusting NOX
emissions for coal-fired units that are projected to convert to natural
gas (i.e., ``coal-to-gas'') in 2018, but are still projected to burn
coal in 2017. These adjustments were only made to the air quality flat
file outputs of IPM and are discussed in greater detail in the IPM
documentation found in the docket for this proposed rule.
3. Development of Emission Inventories for Non-EGU Point Sources
The 2011 non-EGU point sources in the 2011 base case inventory
match those in the 2011NEIv2. Details on the development of the 2011
emission inventories can be found in the 2011NEIv2 TSD. Prior to air
quality modeling, the emission inventories must be processed into a
format that is appropriate for the air quality model to use. Details on
the processing of the emissions for 2011 and on the development of the
2017 non-EGU emission inventories are available in the Emissions
Modeling TSD. Projection factors and percent reductions in this
proposal reflect comments received as a result of the NODAs in 2013 and
2014, along with emission reductions due to national and local rules,
control programs, plant closures, consent decrees and settlements.
Reductions from several Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
standards are included. Projection approaches for corn ethanol and
biodiesel plants, refineries and upstream impacts represent
requirements pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (EISA).
For aircraft emissions at airports, the EPA developed projection
factors based on activity growth projected by the Federal Aviation
Administration Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system, published in March
2013.
Point source and nonpoint oil and gas emissions are projected to
2018 using regional projection factors by product type using Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 projections to year 2017. NOX and
VOC reductions that are co-benefits to the NESHAP and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines (RICE) are reflected for select source categories.
In addition, Natural Gas Turbines and Process Heaters NSPS
NOX controls and NSPS Oil and Gas VOC controls are reflected
for select source categories.
[[Page 75723]]
4. Development of Emission Inventories for Onroad Mobile Sources
The EPA developed the onroad mobile source emissions for states
other than California using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES) 2014. We computed the emissions within SMOKE by multiplying
emission factors developed using MOVES with the appropriate activity
data. We also used MOVES emission factors to estimate emissions from
refueling. The 2011 onroad mobile source emissions used in the
inventory for this rule are similar but not identical to the 2011NEIv2
emissions due to a more detailed treatment of E-85 emissions in the
2011 emission modeling platform used for this rule. Additional
information on the approach for generating the onroad mobile source
emissions is available in the Emissions Modeling TSD. Onroad mobile
source emissions for California are consistent with the emissions
submitted by the state as reflected in the 2011NEIv2.
In the future-year modeling for mobile sources, we included all
national measures known at the time of modeling. The future scenarios
for mobile sources reflect projected changes to fuel usage and onroad
mobile control programs finalized as of the date of the model run.
Finalized rules that are incorporated into the mobile source emissions
include: Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (August
2011), the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the Light Duty
Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the Corporate-Average Fuel Economy
standards for 2008-2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule
(February 2009), and the Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2)
(February 2007). Impacts of rules that were in effect in 2011 are
reflected in the 2011 base year emissions at a level that corresponds
to the extent to which each rule had penetrated into the fleet and fuel
supply by the year 2011. Local control programs such as the California
LEV III program are included in the onroad mobile source emissions.
Activity data for onroad mobile sources was projected using AEO 2014.
Because EPA changed the model year from 2018 to 2017 between its pre-
proposal modeling and the modeling conducted for this proposal (see
footnote 64), and due to the substantial amount of lead time required
to generate emission factors with MOVES, the EPA was unable to directly
generate emission factors for 2017 prior to the modeling used to
support this proposed rule. Therefore, for this proposal, future year
onroad mobile source emissions were computed for 2018 and adjusted to
2017 levels using adjustment factors derived from national MOVES runs
for 2017 and 2018. Emission factors will be generated directly for 2017
prior to air quality modeling for the final rule.
5. Development of Emission Inventories for Commercial Marine Category 3
(Vessel)
The commercial marine category 3 vessel (``C3 marine'') emissions
in the 2011 base case emission inventory for this proposed rule are
consistent with those in the 2011NEIv2. These emissions reflect
reductions associated with the Emissions Control Area proposal to the
International Maritime Organization control strategy (EPA-420-F-10-041,
August 2010); reductions of NOX, VOC, and CO emissions for
new C3 engines that went into effect in 2011; and fuel sulfur limits
that went into effect as early as 2010. The cumulative impacts of these
rules through 2017 are incorporated in the 2017 projected emissions for
C3 marine sources.
6. Development of Emission Inventories for Other Nonroad Mobile Sources
To develop the nonroad mobile source emission inventories other
than C3 marine for the modeling platform, the EPA used monthly, county,
and process level emissions output from the National Mobile Inventory
Model (NMIM) (see https://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm). State-submitted
emissions data for nonroad sources were used for Texas and California.
These emissions are consistent with those in the 2011NEIv2.
The EPA also used NMIM to project nonroad mobile emissions for
future years. Development of the future year nonroad emissions require
a substantial amount of lead time and the emissions were prepared for
the year 2018 before the model year was changed to 2017 when the
attainment date was revised in the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements
Rule. To develop a 2017 nonroad emissions inventory for this proposal
that accounted for the difference between 2017 and 2018 emissions
levels, we calculated the nonroad emissions for 2018, and then adjusted
those emissions to 2017 levels using national adjustment factors
derived from national NMIM runs for 2017 and 2018. Emissions specific
to 2017 will be developed for the modeling that will support the final
rule. The nonroad mobile emission control programs include reductions
to locomotives, diesel engines and marine engines, along with standards
for fuel sulfur content and evaporative emissions. A comprehensive list
of control programs included for mobile sources is available in the
Emissions Modeling TSD.
7. Development of Emission Inventories for Nonpoint Sources
The emissions for stationary nonpoint sources in our 2011 base case
emission inventory are largely consistent with those in the 2011NEIv2.
For more information on the nonpoint sources in the 2011 base case
inventory, see the Emissions Modeling TSD and the 2011NEIv2 TSD.
Where states provided EPA with information about projected control
measures or changes in nonpoint source emissions, the EPA incorporated
those inputs in its projections. We included adjustments for state fuel
sulfur content rules for fuel oil in the Northeast. Projected emissions
for portable fuel containers reflect the impact of projection factors
required by the final Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule and the
EISA, including updates to cellulosic ethanol plants, ethanol transport
working losses, and ethanol distribution vapor losses.
The EPA developed regional projection factors for nonpoint oil and
gas sources by product type based on Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014
projections to year 2018. We reflected criteria air pollutant (CAP) co-
benefit reductions resulting from the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines (RICE) and NSPS rules and Oil and Gas NSPS VOC controls for
select source categories. Additional details on the projections are
available in the Emissions Modeling TSD.
C. Air Quality Modeling To Identify Nonattainment and Maintenance
Receptors
In this section, we describe the air quality modeling performed to
identify locations where we expect there to be nonattainment or
maintenance problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2017
analytic future year chosen for this proposal. We then describe how we
factored current monitored data into the identification of sites as
having either nonattainment or maintenance concerns for the purposes of
this rulemaking. These sites are used as the ``receptors'' for
quantifying the contributions of emissions in upwind states to
nonattainment and maintenance concerns in downwind locations.
[[Page 75724]]
In this proposed rule, the EPA is relying on CSAPR's approach to
identify separate nonattainment and maintenance receptors in order to
give independent effect to both the ``contribute significantly to
nonattainment'' and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's
direction in North Carolina.\78\ In its decision on remand from the
Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that EPA's approach to
identifying maintenance receptors in CSAPR comported with the court's
prior instruction to give independent meaning to the ``interfere with
maintenance'' prong in the good neighbor provision. EME Homer City II,
795 F.3d at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 531 F.3d at 910-911 (holding that the EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In CSAPR, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites that are projected to have average design values that
exceed the NAAQS. The EPA separately identified maintenance receptors
as those receptors that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant
NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in
air quality at that receptor. The CSAPR approach for identifying
nonattainment and maintenance receptors relied only upon air quality
model projections of measured design values. In CSAPR, if the average
design value in the analysis year was projected to exceed the NAAQS,
then the monitoring site is identified as a nonattainment receptor
without consideration of whether the monitoring site is currently
measuring ``clean data'' (i.e., design values below the NAAQS based on
the most recent three years of measured data). In prior transport
rulemakings, such as the NOX SIP Call and CAIR, the EPA
defined nonattainment receptors as those areas that both currently
monitor nonattainment and that the EPA projects will be in
nonattainment in the future compliance year.\79\ We explained that we
had the most confidence in our projections of nonattainment for those
counties that also measure nonattainment for the most recent period of
available ambient data. In CSAPR, we were compelled to deviate from
this practice of incorporating monitored data into EPA's evaluation of
projected nonattainment receptors because the most recent monitoring
data then available reflected large emission reductions from CAIR,
which CSAPR was designed to replace. As recently affirmed by the D.C.
Circuit, it was therefore reasonable for the EPA to decide not to
compare monitored data reflecting CAIR emissions reductions to its
modeling projections that instead excluded CAIR from its baseline.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 63 FR at 57375, 57377 (Oct. 27, 1998); 70 FR at 25241 (May
12, 2005). See also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-914 (affirming
as reasonable EPA's approach to defining nonattainment in CAIR).
\80\ EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 135-36; see also 76 FR 48208
at 48230-31 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the EPA is not replacing an existing transport program in this
rulemaking proposal, we are proposing to consider current monitored
data as part of the process for identifying projected nonattainment
receptors for this rulemaking. Accordingly, in this rulemaking, the EPA
is proposing to return to our prior practice of comparing our modeled
nonattainment projections to current monitored air quality. For the
purposes of this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to identify as
nonattainment receptors those monitors that both currently measure
nonattainment and that the EPA projects will be in nonattainment in
2017.
As noted above, in CSAPR the EPA identified maintenance receptors
as those receptors that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant
NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in
air quality at that receptor. The variability in air quality was
determined by evaluating the ``maximum'' future design value at each
receptor based on a projection of the maximum measured design value
over the relevant period.
The EPA interprets the projected maximum future design value to be
a potential future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology
that yielded maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set
analyzed for that receptor. The EPA also recognizes that previously
experienced meteorological conditions (e.g., dominant wind direction,
temperatures, air mass patterns) promoting ozone formation that led to
maximum concentrations in the measured data may reoccur in the future.
The maximum design value gives a reasonable projection of future air
quality at the receptor under a scenario in which such conditions do,
in fact, reoccur. The projected maximum design value is used to
identify upwind emissions that, under those circumstances, could
interfere with the downwind area's ability to maintain the NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA assesses the magnitude of the maximum projected
design value for 2017 at each receptor in relation to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and, where such a value exceeds the NAAQS, EPA determines that
receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining
interference with maintenance in this proposal, consistent with the
method used in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
II.\81\ That is, monitoring sites with a maximum design value that
exceeds the NAAQS are projected to have a maintenance problem in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 795 F.3d at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the CSAPR methodology, monitoring sites with a
projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring clean data, but are projected to be nonattainment
based on the average design value and that, by definition, are
projected to have a maximum design value above the standard are also
identified as maintenance-only receptors. We are not proposing that
monitored data have any effect on the EPA's determination of
maintenance receptors using the CSAPR method since even those receptor
sites that are not currently monitoring violations are still subject to
conditions that may allow violations to reoccur and therefore have
future maintenance concerns.
The following is a brief summary of the procedures for projecting
future-year 8-hour ozone average and maximum design values to 2017.
Consistent with the EPA's modeling guidance we use the air quality
modeling results in a ``relative'' sense to project future
concentrations. That is, the ratios of future year model predictions to
base year model predictions are used to adjust ambient ozone design
values \82\ up or down depending on the relative (percent) change in
model predictions for each location. The modeling guidance recommends
using measured ozone concentrations for the 5-year period centered on
the base year as the air quality data starting point for future year
projections. This average design value is used to dampen the effects of
inter-annual variability in meteorology on ozone concentrations and to
provide a reasonable projection of future air quality at the receptor
under ``average'' conditions. Because the base year for this proposal
is 2011, we are using the base period 2009-2013 ambient ozone design
value data in order to project
[[Page 75725]]
2017 average design values in a manner consistent with the modeling
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The ozone design value at a particular monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentration at that site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach for projecting future ozone design values involved the
projection of an average of up to 3 design value periods, which include
the years 2009-2013 (design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013). The 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 design values are
accessible at www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. The average of the 3
design values creates a ``5-year weighted average'' value. The 5-year
weighted average values were then projected to 2017. To project 8-hour
ozone design values we used the 2011 base year and 2017 future base-
case model-predicted ozone concentrations to calculate relative
reduction factors (RRFs) for the location of each monitoring site. The
RRFs were applied to the 2009-2013 average ozone design values and the
individual design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013
through the following steps:
Step 1: For each monitoring site, we calculate the average
concentration across the 10 days with the 10 highest 8-hour daily
maximum ozone predictions in the 2017 baseline \83\ using the
predictions in the nine grid cells that include or surround the
location of the monitoring site. The RRF for a site is the ratio of the
mean prediction in the future year to the mean prediction in the 2011
base year. The RRFs were calculated on a site-by-site basis.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ As specified in the attainment demonstration modeling
guidance, if there are fewer than 10 modeled days greater than or
equal to (>=) 70 ppb, then the threshold is lowered in 1 ppb
increments (to as low as 60 ppb) until there are 10 days. If there
are fewer than 5 days >= 60 ppb, then an RRF calculation is not
completed for that site.
\84\ Sites with insufficient valid design values were not
included in the calculation. In addition, sites with fewer than 5
days with predicted 8-hour ozone >= 60 ppb in 2018 were dropped from
the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: The RRF for each site is then multiplied by the 2009-2013
5-year weighted average ambient design value for that site, yielding an
estimate of the future average design value at that particular
monitoring location.
Step 3: We calculate the maximum future design value by multiplying
the RRF for each site by the three base periods (2009-2011, 2010-2012,
and 2011-2013) separately. The highest of the three future values is
the projected maximum design value. Consistent with the truncation and
rounding procedures for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the projected design
values are truncated to integers in units of ppb.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P to Part 50--Interpretation of
the Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected design values that are greater than or equal to 76 ppb
are considered to be violating the NAAQS in 2017. For those sites that
are projected to be violating the NAAQS based on the average design
values in 2017, we examined measured design values for the period 2012-
2014, which is the most recent available measured design values at the
time of this proposal. As noted above, we are proposing to identify
nonattainment receptors in this rulemaking as those sites that are
violating the NAAQS based on current measured air quality and also have
projected average design values of 76 ppb or greater. Maintenance-only
receptors therefore include both (1) those sites with projected average
design values above the NAAQS that are currently measuring clean data
and (2) those sites with projected average design values below the
level of the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values of 76 ppb
or greater. In addition to the maintenance-only receptors, the 2017
ozone nonattainment receptors are also maintenance receptors because
the maximum design values for each of these sites is always greater
than or equal to the average design value. The monitoring sites that we
project to be nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the ozone
NAAQS in the 2017 baseline are used for assessing the contribution of
emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of
ozone NAAQS as part of this proposal.
Table V.C-1 contains the 2009-2013 base period average and maximum
8-hour ozone design values, the 2017 baseline average and maximum
design values, and the 2012-2014 design values for the 8 sites in the
eastern U.S. projected to be 2017 nonattainment receptors. Table V.C-2
contains this same information for the 6 maintenance-only sites in the
eastern U.S. that are projected nonattainment but currently measuring
clean data. Table V.C-3 contains this same information for the 23
maintenance-only sites in the eastern U.S. that are projected to have
average design values below the NAAQS, but maximum design values above
the NAAQS. The design values for all monitoring sites in the U.S. are
provided in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0006. Additional details
on the approach for projecting average and maximum design values are
provided in the modeling guidance, Model Attainment Test Software \86\
documentation, and the AQM TSD. The EPA is seeking comment on the
proposed methods for determining projected nonattainment and
maintenance receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Abt Associates, 2014. User's Guide: Modeled Attainment Test
Software. https://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingapps_mats.htm.
Table V.C-1--Average and Maximum 2009-2013 and 2017 Baseline 8-Hour Ozone Design Values and 2012-2014 Design Values (ppb) at Projected Nonattainment
Sites in the Eastern U.S.
[Nonattainment receptors]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average design Maximum design
Monitor ID State County value 2009- value 2009- Average design Maximum design 2012-2014
2013 2013 value 2017 value 2017 design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90013007........................ Connecticut....... Fairfield......... 84.3 89.0 77.1 81.4 84.0
90019003........................ Connecticut....... Fairfield......... 83.7 87.0 78.0 81.1 85.0
90099002........................ Connecticut....... New Haven......... 85.7 89.0 77.2 80.2 81.0
480391004....................... Texas............. Brazoria.......... 88.0 89.0 81.4 82.3 80.0
481210034....................... Texas............. Denton............ 84.3 87.0 76.9 79.4 81.0
484392003....................... Texas............. Tarrant........... 87.3 90.0 79.6 82.1 77.0
484393009....................... Texas............. Tarrant........... 86.0 86.0 78.6 78.6 80.0
551170006....................... Wisconsin......... Sheboygan......... 84.3 87.0 77.0 79.4 81.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75726]]
Table V.C-2--Average and Maximum 2009-2013 and 2017 Baseline 8-Hour Ozone Design Values and 2012-2014 Design Values (ppb) at Sites in the Eastern U.S.
That Are Projected Nonattainment But Currently Measuring Clean Data
[Maintenance-only receptors]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average design Maximum design
Monitor ID State County value 2009- value 2009- Average design Maximum design 2012-2014 design
2013 2013 value 2017 value 2017 value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240251001...................... Maryland.......... Harford.......... 90.0 93.0 81.3 84.0 75.0
360850067...................... New York.......... Richmond......... 81.3 83.0 76.3 77.8 73.0
361030002...................... New York.......... Suffolk.......... 83.3 85.0 79.2 80.8 73.0
390610006...................... Ohio.............. Hamilton......... 82.0 85.0 76.3 79.1 75.0
482011034...................... Texas............. Harris........... 81.0 82.0 76.8 77.8 72.0
482011039...................... Texas............. Harris........... 82.0 84.0 78.2 80.2 72.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C-3--Average and Maximum 2009-2013 and 2017 Baseline 8-Hour Ozone Design Values and 2012-2014 Design Values (ppb) at Projected Maintenance Sites
in the Eastern U.S. Based on the CSAPR Methodology
[Maintenance-only receptors]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average design Maximum design
Monitor ID State County value 2009- value 2009- Average design Maximum design 2012-2014 design
2013 2013 value 2017 value 2017 value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90010017....................... Connecticut....... Fairfield........ 80.3 83.0 75.8 78.4 82.0
211110067...................... Kentucky.......... Jefferson........ 82.0 85.0 75.8 78.6 Incomplete Data
211850004...................... Kentucky.......... Oldham........... 82.0 86.0 73.7 77.3 74.0
240053001...................... Maryland.......... Baltimore........ 80.7 84.0 73.2 76.2 72.0
260050003...................... Michigan.......... Allegan.......... 82.7 86.0 75.5 78.5 83.0
261630019...................... Michigan.......... Wayne............ 78.7 81.0 74.0 76.2 74.0
340071001...................... New Jersey........ Camden........... 82.7 87.0 74.2 78.1 76.0
340150002...................... New Jersey........ Gloucester....... 84.3 87.0 75.1 77.5 76.0
340230011...................... New Jersey........ Middlesex........ 81.3 85.0 73.0 76.3 74.0
340290006...................... New Jersey........ Ocean............ 82.0 85.0 73.9 76.6 75.0
360810124...................... New York.......... Queens........... 78.0 80.0 75.7 77.6 72.0
420031005...................... Pennsylvania...... Allegheny........ 80.7 82.0 75.3 76.5 77.0
421010024...................... Pennsylvania...... Philadelphia..... 83.3 87.0 75.1 78.4 75.0
480850005...................... Texas............. Collin........... 82.7 84.0 74.9 76.0 78.0
481130069...................... Texas............. Dallas........... 79.7 84.0 74.0 78.0 78.0
481130075...................... Texas............. Dallas........... 82.0 83.0 75.8 76.7 77.0
481211032...................... Texas............. Denton........... 82.7 84.0 75.1 76.3 79.0
482010024...................... Texas............. Harris........... 80.3 83.0 75.9 78.5 72.0
482010026...................... Texas............. Harris........... 77.3 80.0 73.5 76.1 67.0
482010055...................... Texas............. Harris........... 81.3 83.0 75.4 77.0 75.0
482011050...................... Texas............. Harris........... 78.3 80.0 74.6 76.2 72.0
484390075...................... Texas............. Tarrant.......... 82.0 83.0 75.5 76.4 79.0
484393011...................... Texas............. Tarrant.......... 80.7 83.0 74.5 76.6 75.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Pollutant Transport From Upwind States
1. Air Quality Modeling To Quantify Upwind State Contributions
This section documents the procedures the EPA used to quantify the
impact of emissions from specific upwind states on 2017 8-hour design
values for identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
The EPA used CAMx photochemical source apportionment modeling to
quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors for 8-hour ozone. CAMx employs
enhanced source apportionment techniques that track the formation and
transport of ozone from specific emissions sources and calculates the
contribution of sources and precursors to ozone for individual receptor
locations. The strength of the photochemical model source apportionment
technique is that all modeled ozone at a given receptor location in the
modeling domain is tracked back to specific sources of emissions and
boundary conditions to fully characterize culpable sources.
The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment
Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA)
technique \87\ to quantify the contribution of 2017 baseline
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to
projected 2017 ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites. In
the source apportionment model run, we tracked the ozone formed from
each of the following contribution categories (i.e., ``tags''):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ As part of this technique, ozone formed from reactions
between biogenic VOC and NOX with anthropogenic
NOX and VOC are assigned to the anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States--anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions
from each state tracked individually (emissions from all anthropogenic
sectors in a given state were combined);
Biogenics--biogenic NOX and VOC emissions
domain-wide (i.e., not by state);
Boundary Concentrations--concentrations transported into
the modeling domain;
[[Page 75727]]
Tribes--the emissions from those tribal lands for which we
have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the
contributions from individual tribes);
Canada and Mexico--anthropogenic emissions from sources in
the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we
did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
Fires--combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires
domain-wide (i.e., not by state); and
Offshore--combined emissions from offshore marine vessels
and offshore drilling platforms.
The contribution modeling provided contributions to ozone from
anthropogenic NOX and VOC emissions in each state,
individually. The contributions to ozone from chemical reactions
between biogenic NOX and VOC emissions were modeled and
assigned to the ``biogenic'' category. The contributions from wild fire
and prescribed fire NOX and VOC emissions were modeled and
assigned to the ``fires'' category. That is, the contributions from the
``biogenic'' and ``fires'' categories are not assigned to individual
states nor are they included in the state contributions.
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1
through September 30 using the projected 2017 baseline emissions and
2011 meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions \88\
from each tag were processed to obtain the 8-hour average contributions
corresponding to the time period of the 8-hour daily maximum
concentration on each day in the 2017 model simulation. This step was
performed for those model grid cells containing monitoring sites in
order to obtain 8-hour average contributions for each day at the
location of each site. The model-predicted contributions were then
applied in a relative sense to quantify the contributions to the 2017
average design value at each site. The resulting 2017 contributions
from each tag to each monitoring site in the eastern and western U.S.
along with additional details on the source apportionment modeling and
the procedures for calculating contributions can be found in the AQM
TSD. The EPA is seeking comment on the methodologies for calculating
ozone contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Contributions from anthropogenic emissions under
``NOX-limited'' and ``VOC-limited'' chemical regimes were
combined to obtain the net contribution from NOX and VOC
anthropogenic emissions in each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable
representation of the contribution from individual states to the
projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and
other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high
ozone concentrations at the receptor. An average contribution metric
constructed in this manner is beneficial since the magnitude of the
contributions is directly related to the magnitude of the design value
at each site.
The largest contribution from each state in the East to 8-hour
ozone nonattainment receptors in downwind states is provided in Table
V.D-1. The largest contribution from each state in the East to 8-hour
ozone maintenance-only receptors in downwind states is also provided in
Table V.D-1.
Table V.D-1--Largest Contribution to Downwind 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
and Maintenance Receptors for Each State in the Eastern U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest downwind Largest downwind
contribution to contribution to
Upwind state nonattainment maintenance
receptors for receptors for
ozone (ppb) ozone (ppb)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL................................ 0.79 1.28
AR................................ 0.98 2.15
CT................................ 0.00 0.46
DE................................ 0.37 2.23
DC................................ 0.06 0.73
FL................................ 0.54 0.72
GA................................ 0.47 0.58
IL................................ 17.48 23.17
IN................................ 6.24 14.95
IA................................ 0.61 0.85
KS................................ 0.80 1.03
KY................................ 0.75 11.17
LA................................ 3.09 4.23
ME................................ 0.00 0.08
MD................................ 2.07 7.11
MA................................ 0.10 0.37
MI................................ 2.69 1.79
MN................................ 0.40 0.47
MS................................ 0.78 1.48
MO................................ 1.63 3.69
NE................................ 0.24 0.36
NH................................ 0.02 0.07
NJ................................ 8.84 12.38
NY................................ 16.96 17.21
NC................................ 0.55 0.93
ND................................ 0.11 0.28
OH................................ 2.18 7.92
OK................................ 1.70 2.46
PA................................ 9.39 15.93
RI................................ 0.02 0.08
SC................................ 0.16 0.21
[[Page 75728]]
SD................................ 0.08 0.12
TN................................ 0.51 1.67
TX................................ 2.44 2.95
VT................................ 0.01 0.05
VA................................ 1.87 5.29
WV................................ 0.95 3.11
WI................................ 0.34 2.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Application of Screening Threshold
The EPA then evaluated the magnitude of the contributions from each
upwind state to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. In
this proposal, the EPA uses an air quality screening threshold to
identify upwind states that contribute to downwind ozone concentrations
in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to these to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
As discussed above in section III, the EPA is proposing to
establish the air quality screening threshold calculated as one percent
of the NAAQS. Specifically for this rule, we propose calculating an 8-
hour ozone value for this air quality threshold of 0.75 ppb as the
quantification of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
States in the East \89\ whose contributions to a specific receptor
meet or exceed the screening threshold are considered linked to that
receptor; those states' ozone contributions and emissions (and
available emission reductions) are analyzed further, as described in
section VI, to determine whether and what emissions reductions might be
required from each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ As discussed in section III this assessment shows that
there are problem receptors in the West where western states
contribute amounts greater than or equal to the screening threshold
used to evaluate eastern states (i.e., 1 percent of the NAAQS).
However, there may be additional criteria to evaluate regarding
transported air pollution in the West and upwind state obligations.
The EPA proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states, but
seeks comment on whether to include western states in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States in the East whose contributions are below the threshold are
not included in the proposed rule and are considered to make
insignificant contributions to projected downwind air quality problems.
However, for eastern states for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs in
this action, the EPA notes that updates to the modeling for the final
rule could change the analysis as to which states have contributions
that meet or exceed the screening threshold. In the event that air
quality modeling conducted for the final rule demonstrates that states
that contribute amounts below the threshold in the proposal are
projected to contribute amounts greater than or equal to the threshold
in the final rule modeling, the EPA instead proposes to finalize
revised budgets (presented with this rulemaking for comment) for
whichever of those states may be identified as linked to such air
quality problems. The EPA has calculated emissions budgets for all
eastern states that we are proposing to apply to those states if, and
only if, the final rule air quality modeling identifies a linkage as
just described. These budgets are available in the Ozone Transport
Policy Analysis TSD.
Based on the maximum downwind contributions in Table V.D-1, the
following states contribute at or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to
downwind nonattainment receptors: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Based on the maximum downwind contributions in Table
V.D-1, the following states contribute at or above the 0.75 ppb
threshold to downwind maintenance-only receptors: Alabama, Arkansas,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The linkages between each upwind state
and downwind nonattainment receptors and maintenance-only receptors in
the eastern U.S. are provided in Table V.D-2 and Table V.D-3,
respectively.
Table V.D-2--Linkages Between Each Upwind State and Downwind
Nonattainment Receptors in the Eastern U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upwind state Downwind nonattainment receptors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Tarrant Co., TX (484392003).
AR............................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Tarrant
Co., TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393009).
IL............................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan
Co., WI (551170006).
IN............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
KS............................ Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
KY............................ Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
LA............................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Denton
Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co., TX
(484392003); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
MD............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002).
MI............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
MS............................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004).
[[Page 75729]]
MO............................ Brazoria Co., TX (480391004); Sheboygan
Co., WI (551170006).
NJ............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002).
NY............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002).
OH............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
OK............................ Denton Co., TX (481210034); Tarrant Co.,
TX (484392003); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393009); Sheboygan Co., WI
(551170006).
PA............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002).
TX............................ Sheboygan Co., WI (551170006).
VA............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003); New Haven Co., CT
(90099002).
WV............................ Fairfield Co., CT (90013007); Fairfield
Co., CT (90019003).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.D-3--Linkages Between Each Upwind States and Downwind
Maintenance-Only Receptors in the Eastern U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upwind state Downwind maintenance receptors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL................................ Hamilton Co., OH (390610006); Harris
Co., TX (482010055).
AR................................ Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan
Co., MI (260050003); Dallas Co., TX
(481130069); Dallas Co., TX
(481130075); Harris Co., TX
(482010026); Harris Co., TX
(482010055); Harris Co., TX
(482011039); Harris Co., TX
(482011050); Tarrant Co., TX
(484390075); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393011).
DE................................ Camden Co., NJ (340071001);
Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002);
Ocean Co., NJ (340290006);
Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
IL................................ Jefferson Co., KY (211110067);
Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan
Co., MI (260050003); Wayne Co., MI
(261630019); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Harris Co., TX
(482010026); Harris Co., TX
(482011039).
IN................................ Jefferson Co., KY (211110067);
Oldham Co., KY (211850004);
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001);
Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne
Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ
(340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
IA................................ Allegan Co., MI (260050003).
KS................................ Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Tarrant
Co., TX (484390075); Tarrant Co.,
TX (484393011).
KY................................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden
Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co.,
NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
LA................................ Collin Co., TX (480850005); Dallas
Co., TX (481130069); Dallas Co., TX
(481130075); Denton Co., TX
(481211032); Harris Co., TX
(482010024); Harris Co., TX
(482010026); Harris Co., TX
(482010055); Harris Co., TX
(482011034); Harris Co., TX
(482011039); Harris Co., TX
(482011050); Tarrant Co., TX
(484390075); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393011).
MD................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017);
Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002);
Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011);
Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co.,
NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
MI................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017);
Jefferson Co., KY (211110067);
Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Harford
Co., MD (240251001); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005).
MS................................ Harris Co., TX (482010055); Harris
Co., TX (482011039).
MO................................ Oldham Co., KY (211850004); Allegan
Co., MI (260050003); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Harris Co., TX
(482010026); Harris Co., TX
(482010055); Harris Co., TX
(482011039); Harris Co., TX
(482011050).
NJ................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co.,
NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
NY................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017); Camden
Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co.,
NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006).
NC................................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001).
OH................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017);
Jefferson Co., KY (211110067);
Oldham Co., KY (211850004);
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001); Wayne
Co., MI (261630019); Camden Co., NJ
(340071001); Gloucester Co., NJ
(340150002); Middlesex Co., NJ
(340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
OK................................ Allegan Co., MI (260050003);
Hamilton Co., OH (390610006);
Dallas Co., TX (481130069); Dallas
Co., TX (481130075); Denton Co., TX
(481211032); Harris Co., TX
(482010026); Harris Co., TX
(482011034); Harris Co., TX
(482011039); Tarrant Co., TX
(484390075); Tarrant Co., TX
(484393011).
PA................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017);
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden
Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co.,
NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002).
TN................................ Hamilton Co., OH (390610006);
Philadelphia Co., PA (421010024).
[[Page 75730]]
TX................................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001);
Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Camden
Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
VA................................ Fairfield Co., CT (90010017);
Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001);
Gloucester Co., NJ (340150002);
Middlesex Co., NJ (340230011);
Ocean Co., NJ (340290006); Queens
Co., NY (360810124); Richmond Co.,
NY (360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
WV................................ Baltimore Co., MD (240053001);
Harford Co., MD (240251001); Camden
Co., NJ (340071001); Gloucester
Co., NJ (340150002); Middlesex Co.,
NJ (340230011); Ocean Co., NJ
(340290006); Queens Co., NY
(360810124); Richmond Co., NY
(360850067); Suffolk Co., NY
(361030002); Hamilton Co., OH
(390610006); Allegheny Co., PA
(420031005); Philadelphia Co., PA
(421010024).
WI................................ Allegan Co., MI (260050003); Wayne
Co., MI (261630019).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, after the receptor and contribution
analyses for this proposal were underway, the EPA released an updated
IPM base case, version 5.15, and the final CPP. In order to reflect all
on-the-books policies as well as the most current power sector modeling
data, the EPA performed an assessment to reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15
with the CPP in an ``adjusted'' base case for this proposal. All
references below to the ``adjusted base case'' refer to the 2017 air
quality modeling base case which has been adjusted to account for the
revised IPM 5.15 with CPP emissions. This assessment method relied on
the EPA's air quality modeling contribution data as well as projected
ozone concentrations from an illustrative EGU NOX mitigation
scenario. For more information about these methods, refer to the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document.
This assessment shows that two receptors--Hamilton County Ohio
(390610006) and Richmond County New York (360850067)--that were
projected to have average design values exceeding the NAAQS in the
modeled 2017 baseline, are expected to have average design values below
the NAAQS with the adjusted base case. However, these receptors are
still expected to have maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS with
the adjusted base case. Because both of these receptors are also
considered maintenance receptors for the purposes of this proposal,
their status as identified air quality concerns and the status of
states linked to these receptors is unchanged by the adjusted base
case.
This assessment also shows that four receptors--Allegheny County
Pennsylvania (420031005), Collin County Texas (480850005), Wayne County
Michigan (261630019), and Middlesex County New Jersey (340230011)--that
were projected to have maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS in the
modeled base case, are expected to have maximum design values below the
NAAQS with the adjusted base case. With the adjusted base case, these
sites would not be considered nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the purposes of this proposal. However, because no state is linked
solely to any one of these sites, changing the status of these
receptors does not impact the scope of states linked to downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors for this proposal.
In addition to evaluating the status of downwind receptors
identified for this proposal, the EPA evaluated whether the adjusted
base case would reduce ozone contributions from upwind states to the
extent that a previously linked state would have a maximum contribution
less than the 1% threshold. This assessment shows that in the adjusted
base case, all states are expected to remain linked (i.e., contribute
greater than or equal to 1% of the NAAQS) to at least one downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. Therefore, using the adjusted
base case for this proposal does not impact the scope of states linked
to downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors relative to the
modeled base case.
The analyses that EPA uses in section VI to quantify EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for this proposal also
rely on the adjusted base case.
The EPA seeks comment on its assessment of the impacts of relying
on the adjusted base case for these purposes, and on EPA's intention to
rely on full air quality and IPM modeling of the adjusted base case to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors and to inform the
analysis of interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State EGU NOX Reduction Potential To
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2008 NAAQS
A. Introduction
This section describes the EPA's proposed quantification of near-
term EGU NOX reductions that are necessary to fulfill (at
least in part) the Clean Air Act requirement to address interstate
ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS. This section also describes the
EPA's proposal to translate these reductions into EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets. Section VII describes the EPA's
proposal to implement these proposed emissions budgets via updates to
the existing CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program.
As described in section V, the EPA separately identified
nonattainment receptors and maintenance receptors. The EPA proposes to
apply a single approach for quantifying an upwind state's ozone
transport obligation to both nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
It is reasonable to apply the same approach to quantify upwind-state
reduction requirements with respect to both nonattainment and
maintenance because the structure of the problems is the same--
emissions from sources in upwind states contributing to downwind ozone
concentrations that put the downwind receptor at risk of nonattainment
with respect to the EPA's clean air standards. Moreover, as all
nonattainment receptors are also maintenance receptors because the
maximum design value will always be equal to or exceed the average
design value, it is reasonable to control all sites consistent with the
level of control necessary to reduce maintenance concerns.
As described in section III of this preamble, due to the impending
July 2018 moderate area attainment date, the EPA is proposing, as a
first step, to
[[Page 75731]]
quantify near-term EGU NOX ozone-season emission reductions
to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For this
section, this means that the EPA is proposing to quantify ozone season
EGU NOX reductions achievable for the 2017 ozone season
(i.e., the last full ozone season prior to the July 2018 attainment
date).
The EPA's assessment of upwind state obligations in this proposal
reflects application of a multi-factor test that considers cost,
available emission reductions, and air quality. This is the same multi-
factor test used in the original CSAPR. This multi-factor test
considers increasing levels of uniform control stringency, where each
level is represented by cost, to determine the appropriate magnitude of
pollution reduction that would reduce the impacts of interstate
transport on downwind states and to apportion that reduction
responsibility among collectively-contributing upwind states. This
approach to quantifying upwind state emission reduction obligations was
reviewed by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
which held that using such an approach to apportion reduction
responsibilities among upwind states that are collectively responsible
for downwind air quality impacts ``is an efficient and equitable
solution to the allocation problem the Good Neighbor Provision requires
the Agency to address.'' 134 S.Ct. at 1607.
There are three steps in developing and applying the multi-factor
test to quantify upwind state emission reductions as to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS: (1) Identify NOX mitigation strategies, focusing on
those that can be in place for the 2017 ozone season; (2) develop
uniform EGU NOX cost thresholds based on these NOx
mitigation strategies; (3) assess EGU NOX mitigation
potential that is achievable for 2017 and assess corresponding air
quality improvements resulting from the application of each uniform
cost threshold, including to check for over-control. This multi-factor
evaluation informs the EPA's determination of appropriate ozone season
EGU NOX reductions necessary to reduce significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS for the proposed 2017 compliance year. These steps are
discussed in further detail in the following sections.
This proposal evaluates a range of uniform EGU NOX costs
from $500 per ton to $10,000 per ton. This range, and the intermediate
uniform NOX cost thresholds evaluated within that range,
were selected based on the cost thresholds at which various EGU
NOX control technologies are widely available, the use of
certain EGU NOX cost thresholds in previous rules to address
ozone transport, and EGU NOX cost thresholds incorporated
into state requirements to address ozone nonattainment.
In this proposal, the EPA evaluated the emission reduction
potential in each upwind state at each uniform NOX cost
threshold using the adjusted IPM base case 5.15. In this case, the EPA
limited IPM's evaluation of NOX mitigation strategies to
those that can be implemented for the 2017 ozone season, which is the
proposed compliance timing for this rulemaking, as described in section
VI.B below.
B. NOX Mitigation Strategies
The following sub-sections describe the EPA's assessment of EGU and
non-EGU point source NOX mitigation strategies. For more
details on these assessments, refer to the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD and the Update to Non-EGU Emission Reductions
Cost and Potential for States with Potentially Significant
Contributions under the 2008 Ozone Standard TSD in the docket for this
proposed rule.
1. EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
In developing this proposed rule, the EPA considered all widely
used EGU NOX control strategies: Fully operating existing
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR)--including optimizing NOX removal by
existing, operational SCRs and SNCRs and turning on and optimizing
existing idled SCRs and SNCRs; installation of (or upgrading to) state-
of-the-art NOX combustion controls; shifting generation to
units with lower NOX emission rates within the same state;
and installing new SCRs and SNCRs. Although this proposal does not
require or impose any specific technology standards to demonstrate
compliance, EPA determined that certain technologies would be available
by the 2017 timeframe when assessing potential reductions in the
region.
For the reasons explained below, the EPA determined that the power
sector could implement all of these NOX mitigation
strategies, except installation of new SCRs or SNCRs, between
finalization of this proposal in summer of 2016 and the 2017 ozone
season. As to the installation of new SCRs or SNCRs, the amount of time
from contract award through commissioning for retrofit with new SCR or
SNCR exceeds 18 and 12 months, respectively. For both technologies,
conceptual design, permitting, financing, and bid review require
additional time. It would therefore not be feasible to retrofit new SCR
or SNCR to achieve EGU NOX reductions in the 2017 ozone
season. See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD for discussion
of feasibility of EGU NOX controls for the 2017 ozone
season. Therefore, the EPA analyzed the remaining strategies for
purposes of quantifying upwind state obligations in this rule.
Exclusion of new SCR and SNCR installation from this analysis reflects
a determination only that these strategies are infeasible by 2017, not
a determination that they are infeasible or inappropriate for
consideration of cost-effective NOX reduction potential over
a longer timeframe. The EPA requests comment on what EGU NOX
mitigation strategies are feasible for the 2017 ozone season.
a. Fully Operating Existing SCRs and SNCRs
Fully operating existing SCR and SNCRs can significantly reduce EGU
NOX emissions quickly, using investments that have already
been made. SCRs can achieve up to 90 percent reduction in EGU
NOX (with sufficient installed catalyst), while SNCRs can
achieve 20-30 percent reduction in EGU NOX, beyond the
reductions from combustion controls. These controls are in widespread
use across the U.S. power sector. In the east, approximately 64 percent
of coal-fired EGU capacity and 75 percent of natural gas combined cycle
(NGCC) EGU capacity is equipped with SCR or SNCR. Recent power sector
data reveal that some SCR and SNCR controls are being underused.\90\ In
some cases, controls are not fully operating (i.e., the controls could
be operated at a higher NOX removal rate). In other cases,
controls have been idled for years. Fully operating existing SCR and
SNCR would be a cost-effective and readily available approach for EGUs
to reduce NOX emissions and the EPA evaluated this
NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying EGU NOX
obligations for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ This assessment is available in the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that are operating to some extent, but
not at their full pollution control capability, the EPA's analysis
determined that $500 per ton represents the costs reflective of fully
operating these systems. Because the SCR or SNCR is already installed
and is at least to some extent operating, the EPA assumes that
additional reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea) is the only
[[Page 75732]]
significant cost required for full operation. We observe that urea can
cost on the order of $300 per metric ton. The cost for anhydrous
ammonia is around $750 per ton.\91\ In our assessment, we assume that a
50 percent solution is used in removing an equivalent amount of
NOX. Thus, we estimate that sufficient reagent could be
purchased at a cost of $500 per ton of NOX removed to
achieve full operation for most SCRs and SNCRs. For more details on
this assessment, refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
TSD in the docket for this proposed rule. The proposal seeks comment on
this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Schnitkey, G. ``Nitrogen Fertilizer Prices and 2015
Planting Decisions.'' farmdoc daily (4):195, Department of
Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, October 9, 2014.
Permalink URL https://farmdocvdaily.illinois.edu/2014/10/nitrogen-fertilizer-prices-and-2015-planting-decisions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The operational difference between not fully operating and fully
operating existing SCRs and SNCRs is increasing reagent (i.e., ammonia
or urea) flow rate and ensuring sufficient reagent exists to sustain
higher flow operations. Therefore, increasing NOX removal
from these controls can be implemented by procuring more reagent.
Stocking-up additional reagent for sustaining increased NOX
removal could be done in a one or two weeks.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ This assessment is available in the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that have been idled for years, unit
operators may need to restart payment of some fixed and variable costs
associated with that control. Fixed and variable costs include labor,
maintenance and repair, reagent, parasitic load, and ammonia or urea.
As further detailed in the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
TSD, which is found in the docket for this proposed rule, the EPA
performed an in-depth cost assessment for all coal-fired units with
SCRs, finding that 90 percent of the units had total SCR operation
costs of $1,300 per ton of NOX removed, or less.
Based on this assessment, the EPA proposes that turning on and
fully operating idled SCRs is widely available at a uniform cost of
$1,300 per ton of NOX removed. For more details on this
assessment, refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD
in the docket for this proposed rule. The proposal seeks comment on
this assessment.
The EPA performed a similar assessment for fully operating existing
idled SNCR systems, finding that the majority of the total fixed and
variable operating cost for SNCR is related to the cost of the reagent
used (e.g., ammonia or urea) and that the resulting cost per ton of
NOX reduction is sensitive to the NOX rate of the
unit prior to SNCR operation. Based on the results of this analysis,
and in order to represent a broad range of unit-level NOX
rates before SNCR operation, the EPA proposes that turning on and fully
operating idled SNCRs is widely available at a uniform cost of $3,400
per ton of NOX removed. For more details on this assessment,
refer to the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket
for this proposed rule. The proposal seeks comment on this assessment
and on higher cost thresholds that would require some installation of
new SCRs/SNCRs and the appropriate timetable or phase-in needed to
accommodate those technologies.
The EPA also evaluated the feasibility of turning on idled SCR and
SNCR for the 2017 ozone season. Based on past practice and the possible
effort to restart the controls (e.g., stockpiling reagent, bringing the
system out of protective lay-up, performing inspections, etc.),
returning these idled controls to operation should be available in
equal to or less than 3 months.\93\ The proposal seeks comment on this
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ This assessment is available in the EGU NOX
Mitigation Strategies TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. State-of-the-Art NOX Combustion Controls
State-of-the-art combustion controls such as low-NOX
burners (LNB) and/or over-fire air (OFA) are cost-effective, can be
installed quickly, and can significantly reduce EGU NOX
emissions. Ninety-nine percent of coal-fired EGU capacity in the East
is equipped with some form of combustion control. Combustion controls
alone can achieve NOX emission rates of 0.15 to 0.50 lb/
mmBtu. Once installed, combustion controls reduce NOX
emissions at all times of EGU operation. State-of-the-art combustion
controls would be a cost-effective, timely, and readily available
approach for EGUs to reduce NOX emissions and the EPA
included this NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying EGU
NOX reductions for this proposal.
The cost of state-of-the-art combustion controls per ton of
NOX reduced is dependent on the combustion control type and
unit type. We estimate the cost per ton of state-of-the-art combustion
controls to be $500 per ton to $1,200 per ton of NOX
removed. To be conservative, the EPA proposes that installation of (or
upgrading to) state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls is
widely available at $1,300 per ton of NOX removed.
As described in CSAPR the EPA has observed that upgrade,
replacement, or installation of combustion controls has been
demonstrated to be achievable within the timeframe provided for by this
rulemaking and its compliance dates.\94\ The EPA revisited this
analysis with data specific to this proposal and proposes that a 2017
compliance timeframe is feasible for this EGU NOX mitigation
strategy. These controls are fully proven, widely used, and with a
reasonable effort can be procured, designed, installed, tested and be
in operation on any coal-steam EGU consistent with the compliance
timeframe provided for this rulemaking. The EPA proposes that this will
be feasible for the 2017 ozone season. The proposal seeks comment on
additional EGU NOx mitigation strategies that may be feasible for the
2017 ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ ``Installation Timing for Low NOX Burners
(LNB)'', Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more details on this assessment, refer to the EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD in the docket for this
proposed rule. The proposal seeks comment on this assessment.
c. Shifting Generation to Lower NOX-Emitting EGUs
Shifting generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs, similar
to operating existing post-combustion controls, uses investments that
have already been made, can be done quickly, and can significantly
reduce EGU NOX emissions.
Since CSAPR was promulgated, electricity generation has trended
toward lower NOX-emitting generation due to market
conditions (e.g., low natural gas prices) and state and federal
environmental policies. For example, new NGCC facilities, which
represented 45% of new 2014 capacity, can achieve NOX
emission rates of 0.0095 lb/mmBtu, compared to existing coal steam
facilities, which emitted at an average rate across the 23 states
included in this proposal of 0.18 lbs/mmBtu of NOX in 2014.
This substantial difference in NOX emission performance
between existing coal steam and new NGCC generation is due both to
higher nitrogen content in coal compared to natural gas, as well as to
the substantially lower generating efficiency of steam combustion
technology compared to combined cycle combustion technology. Shifting
generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs would be a cost-
effective, timely, and readily available approach for EGUs to reduce
NOX emissions and the EPA
[[Page 75733]]
included this NOX mitigation strategy in quantifying EGU
NOX obligations for this proposal.
Shifting generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs occurs on
a continuum in response to economic factors such as fuel costs and
uniform NOX cost thresholds, including those evaluated for
this proposal (i.e., relatively lower uniform NOX cost
thresholds incentivize relatively fewer EGU NOX reductions
resulting from shifting generation, while relatively higher uniform
NOX cost thresholds encourage more EGU NOX
reductions driven by shifting generation). As a result, the EPA
quantified reduction potential from this EGU NOX mitigation
strategy at each cost level identified that represents the availability
of other pollution control measures evaluated in our assessment of
uniform NOX cost thresholds described in section VI.C.
In this analysis, the EPA assumed shifting generation to units with
lower NOX emission rates could occur within the same state
by the near-term 2017 implementation timing for this proposed rule when
assessing state emission reduction potential for emissions budget
purposes. This conservative approach does not capture emission
reductions that would occur if generation was shifted more broadly
among units in different states, which the EPA believes is feasible
over time but which may be subject to out-of-merit order dispatch
constraints in the near term. Limiting such generation shifting
potential to units within each state is not a reflection of how
generation shifting works in practice (given that the grid crosses
state boundaries); instead, it is an analytic proxy designed to respect
the feasibility of near-term generation shifting in light of these
potential near-term out-of-merit order dispatch constraints. The EPA
seeks comment on this assessment and on this limitation in quantifying
EGU NOX reduction potential for the 2017 ozone season.
2. Non-EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies
The EPA is not proposing to address non-EGU emission reductions in
its efforts to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS at this time. Compared to EGUs, there are relatively more non-EGU
point sources and these sources on average are smaller than EGUs. The
implication of these fleet characteristics is that there are more
individual sources to control and there are relatively fewer emission
reductions available from each source. Given the proposed 2017
implementation timing for this rulemaking, we are uncertain that
significant aggregate NOX mitigation is achievable from non-
EGU point sources for 2017. Moreover, there is greater uncertainty in
the EPA's assessment of non-EGU point-source NOX mitigation
potential (see below). The EPA requests comment on these issues,
including how non-EGU reductions should be addressed and considered in
fulfilling upwind states' good neighbor obligations under the 2008
ozone standard in the future, as the control of non-EGUs may be a
necessary part of addressing states' full transport obligation. States
can always choose to reduce non-EGU emissions via good neighbor SIPs.
The EPA has evaluated the potential for ozone season NOX
reductions from non-EGU sources. A detailed discussion of this
assessment is provided in the Non-EGU NOX Mitigation
Potential TSD, located in the docket for this proposed rule. This TSD
discusses non-EGU source category emissions, EPA tools for estimating
emission reductions from non-EGU categories, and efforts, to date, to
review and refine our estimates for certain states. In addition, the
TSD contains brief discussions of available controls, costs, and
potential emission reductions for a few specific source categories. The
EPA views this non-EGU assessment as an initial step in future efforts
to evaluate non-EGU categories that may be necessary to fully quantify
upwind states' significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance. The EPA seeks comment on its assessment
that non-EGU controls are not feasible by the 2017 ozone-season. It
also seeks comment on its broader non-EGU NOX mitigation
assessment and the availability of non-EGU NOX emission
reductions to mitigate interstate ozone transport in years following
2017.
Although EPA did not find non-EGU reductions feasible by 2017 in
this proposal, it is taking comment on that assessment. Future EPA
rulemakings or guidance could revisit the potential for reductions from
non-EGU sources. Under such a scenario, EPA could use a similar
approach of identifying appropriate cost thresholds for non-EGUs and
EGUs alike, and then identify potential emission reductions and
corresponding emission budgets. Under this scenario, an emission budget
could be established for all covered sources (e.g., EGUs and non-EGUs
alike) with fungible allowances. EPA is taking comment on the potential
to combine EGUs and non-EGUs into a single trading program to resolve
the remaining non-attainment and maintenance issues at a later date.
C. Uniform EGU Cost Thresholds for Assessment
As discussed above, the multi-factor test used here considers
increasing levels of uniform control stringency, where each level is
represented by cost, in combination with consideration of
NOX reduction potential and corresponding air quality
improvements. To determine which cost thresholds to use to assess
upwind state NOX mitigation potential, the EPA evaluated EGU
NOX control costs that represent the thresholds at which
various control technologies are widely available (described previously
in section VI.B), the use of certain cost thresholds in previous rules
to address ozone transport, and cost thresholds incorporated into state
requirements to address ozone nonattainment.
The EPA began by determining the appropriate range of costs to
evaluate. The lower end of the range is informed by a confluence of
considerations. In CSAPR, $500 per ton was the EGU NOX cost
threshold relied upon to partially address ozone transport for the less
stringent 1997 standard. It is also the lowest marginal cost where EPA
expects NOX reduction to be cost effective, based on our
assessment of EGU NOX mitigation strategies (see section B).
Specifically, the cost of this approach to NOX reduction is
the marginal cost of running currently operating SCR and SNCR systems
at higher levels of NOX removal than they are currently
achieving. The EPA has not identified a discrete NOX
pollution control measure that would achieve sufficient emission
reductions to address relevant air quality impacts at an estimated cost
of less than $500 per ton; as a result, the EPA has not included a
representation of such a cost level in this proposal's analyses.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Additionally, the EPA notes that, as discussed in more
detail below, no identified air quality problems were resolved at
the $500 per ton cost threshold. Accordingly, it would not be
practical for the EPA to evaluate emission reductions achieved at
cost thresholds below $500 per ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA then evaluated EGU NOX cost thresholds to
determine an appropriate upper bound for our assessment. The EPA
identified $10,000 per ton as an upper bound, exceeding the costs of
operating existing or installing new EGU NOX controls.
The EPA seeks comment on whether $500 per ton is an appropriate
minimum and $10,000 per ton is an appropriate maximum uniform cost
threshold to evaluate for the purpose of quantifying EGU NOX
reductions to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
[[Page 75734]]
The EPA then determined appropriate EGU NOX cost
thresholds to evaluate within the range of $500 per ton to $10,000 per
ton. As described above, these cost thresholds are informed by our
assessment of the costs at which EGU NOX control strategies
are widely available. While the EPA could evaluate additional cost
thresholds in between those selected, this would not yield meaningful
insights as to NOX reduction potential. The EPA has
identified cost thresholds where control technologies are widely
available and thereby where the most significant incremental emission
reduction potential is expected. Analyzing costs between these cost
thresholds is not expected to reveal significant incremental emission
reduction potential that isn't already anticipated at the analyzed cost
thresholds. Table VI.C-1 lists the EGU NOX cost thresholds
evaluated and the NOX reduction strategy or policy used to
identify each cost threshold.
Table VI.C-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU NOX cost threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$500/ton......................... CSAPR ozone season NOX cost
threshold; fully operating post-
combustion controls that are already
running.
$1,300/ton....................... Widespread availability of restarting
idled SCRs and state of the art
combustion controls.
$3,400/ton....................... NOX SIP Call ozone season NOX cost
threshold, adjusted to 2014$;
Widespread availability of
restarting idled SNCRs.
$5,000/ton....................... Widespread availability of new
SCRs.\96\
$6,400/ton....................... Widespread availability of new
SNCRs.\97\
$10,000/ton...................... Upper bound.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes that this range and selection of interim uniform
cost thresholds are appropriate to evaluate potential EGU
NOX reduction obligations to address interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because these cost thresholds are
linked to costs at which EGU NOX mitigation strategies
become widely available in each state, the cost thresholds represent
the break points at which the most significant step-changes in EGU
NOX mitigation are expected. The EPA seeks comment on the
appropriateness of evaluating these uniform cost thresholds for the
purpose of quantifying EGU NOX reductions to reduce
interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ The cost assessment for new SCR is available in the EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While chosen to define a
cost-threshold, new SCRs were not considered a feasible control on
the compliance timeframe being proposed for this rule.
\97\ The cost assessment for new SNCR is available in the EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD. While chosen to define a
cost-threshold, new SNCRs were not considered a feasible control on
the compliance timeframe being proposed for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Assessing Cost, EGU NOX Reductions, and Air Quality
The EPA analyzed ozone season NOX emission reductions
available from the power sector in each state using IPM.\98\ The agency
analyzed levels of uniform control stringency, where each level is
represented by uniform EGU NOX cost thresholds listed in
Table VI.C-1 above and repeated here: $500 per ton; $1,300 per ton;
$3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; $6,400 per ton; and $10,000 per ton.
The EPA limited IPM's NOX mitigation strategies to those
that could be implemented for 2017, as described in section VI.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ IPM version 5.14 is discussed in preamble section IV.B, and
as noted in preamble section V, for purposes of this quantification
analysis EPA used an adjusted base case reflecting IPM version 5.15,
including the Clean Power Plan. IPM documentation is in the docket
and available at www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis applied these uniform EGU NOX cost
thresholds to EGUs in the 48 contiguous United States and the District
of Columbia, starting in 2017. The analysis covered EGUs with a
capacity (electrical output) greater than 25 MW to make the analysis
similar to previous analyses done for interstate transport purposes.
The EGU Emission Reduction Cost Analysis TSD, which is in the docket
for this proposed rule, provides further details of EPA's analysis of
ozone season NOX emission reductions occurring at the
representative EGU NOX cost thresholds analyzed for the 2017
ozone season.
Table VI.D--1 shows the 2017 baseline EGU emissions and ozone
season NOX reduction potential in each state corresponding
to the uniform cost levels.
Table VI.D-1--EGU Ozone Season NOX Emission Reductions (Tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 emissions Reduction potential (short tons) at various
(short tons) representative marginal costs per ton (in 2011$)
State ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case $500/ton $1,300/ton $3,400/ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................. 13,289 1,729 3,582 3,670
Arkansas............................ 6,224 13 104 859
Illinois............................ 10,021 395 472 546
Indiana............................. 41,748 6,611 12,173 12,989
Iowa................................ 7,911 186 423 717
Kansas.............................. 11,332 428 438 465
Kentucky............................ 27,141 3,608 11,896 12,382
Louisiana........................... 10,897 64 117 400
Maryland............................ 6,470 1,028 1,026 1,164
Michigan............................ 20,049 403 3,033 3,528
Mississippi......................... 7,871 82 297 893
Missouri............................ 17,050 934 996 1,152
New Jersey.......................... 3,302 370 372 378
New York............................ 4,948 115 284 359
North Carolina...................... 14,435 1,922 1,922 3,526
[[Page 75735]]
Ohio................................ 27,795 5,746 9,646 9,666
Oklahoma............................ 19,593 703 2,170 3,169
Pennsylvania........................ 41,533 2,210 26,759 26,791
Tennessee........................... 5,554 74 113 146
Texas............................... 58,199 685 3,610 5,810
Virginia............................ 7,196 423 539 1,587
West Virginia....................... 25,384 592 10,908 12,014
Wisconsin........................... 5,257 5 36 107
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 393,198 28,325 90,916 102,318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.D-1 (continued)--EGU Ozone Season NOX Emission Reductions (Tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction potential (short tons) at various
representative marginal costs per ton (in 2011$)
State --------------------------------------------------------
$5,000/ton $6,400/ton $10,000/ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................ 4,780 5,418 5,840
Arkansas............................................... 1,147 1,242 1,935
Illinois............................................... 622 640 761
Indiana................................................ 13,770 13,437 17,109
Iowa................................................... 717 717 1,317
Kansas................................................. 677 838 1,150
Kentucky............................................... 12,473 13,456 14,503
Louisiana.............................................. 461 467 706
Maryland............................................... 1,176 1,369 1,369
Michigan............................................... 3,756 3,889 4,411
Mississippi............................................ 1,165 1,479 2,208
Missouri............................................... 1,298 1,930 2,775
New Jersey............................................. 381 384 465
New York............................................... 370 661 906
North Carolina......................................... 3,626 4,415 4,643
Ohio................................................... 9,773 10,078 10,231
Oklahoma............................................... 3,821 5,702 6,609
Pennsylvania........................................... 26,913 26,932 27,091
Tennessee.............................................. 224 241 285
Texas.................................................. 6,940 7,772 8,380
Virginia............................................... 3,104 3,560 3,610
West Virginia.......................................... 12,211 12,243 12,243
Wisconsin.............................................. 131 276 618
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 109,535 117,145 129,166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, the EPA performed a combined multi-factor assessment of costs
(i.e., the uniform cost thresholds evaluated), EGU NOX
reductions (i.e., the reductions in Table VI.D-1), and corresponding
improvements in downwind ozone concentrations. For this assessment, the
EPA used simplifying assumptions regarding the relationship between EGU
NOX emissions and corresponding ozone concentrations at
nonattainment and maintenance receptors of concern. For more
information about how this assessment was performed, refer to the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document.
For each nonattainment or maintenance receptor identified for this
proposal, the EPA evaluated the air quality improvement at that
receptor that is expected from progressively more stringent upwind EGU
NOX reductions in states that are linked to that receptor.
For example, the EPA evaluated the Harford County Maryland receptor
with all linked states controlling their emissions at $500 per ton.
This assessment showed a 0.35 ppb reduction in expected ozone design
values at $500 per ton. The residual design values at this site are
still expected to exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS with an average design
value of 81.2 ppb and a maximum design value of 83.9 ppb. Next, the EPA
evaluated this receptor with all linked states controlling their
emissions at $1,300 per ton. This assessment showed a 0.94 ppb
reduction in expected ozone design values. At a cost threshold of
$1,300 per ton, the residual design values at this site are expected to
continue to exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS with an average design value of
80.6 ppb and a maximum design value of 83.3 ppb. With respect to this
receptor, the EPA then evaluated each progressively more stringent
uniform control stringency (i.e. $3,400 per ton; $5,000 per ton; $6,400
per ton; and $10,000 per ton). Generally, the EPA evaluated the air
quality improvements at each monitoring site for each progressively
more stringent uniform EGU NOX control level. This
information is available in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis TSD.
This approach evaluates interstate ozone transport for each
receptor independently. Also, by evaluating the downwind ozone impact
of upwind
[[Page 75736]]
reductions that are made in all linked states at the same uniform
control stringency, this approach provides equitable treatment of all
upwind states as to their contribution to each downwind receptor to
which they are linked.
The EPA aggregates the relevant data (i.e., cost of control, EGU
NOX reduction potential, and downwind ozone reduction
metrics) in a multi-factor test that allows the EPA to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of various levels of emission reductions and the
resulting improvements in downwind ozone concentrations.
This evaluation shows that meaningful EGU NOX reductions
are available at reasonable cost and that these reductions can provide
meaningful improvements in downwind ozone concentrations at the
identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors for this proposal.
For example, the combined downwind ozone improvement across
nonattainment and maintenance receptors is approximately 19 ppb at the
$1,300 per ton level. See Figure VI.1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE15.000
Combining costs, EGU NOX reductions, and corresponding
improvements in downwind ozone concentrations results in a ``knee in
the curve'' at $1,300 per ton. This uniform cost of reduction
represents the threshold at which EGU NOX reduction
potential and corresponding downwind ozone air quality improvements are
maximized with respect to marginal cost. That is, the ratio of emission
reductions to marginal cost and the ratio of ozone improvements to
marginal cost are maximized relative to the other uniform cost
thresholds evaluated. Further, at higher cost thresholds, as a result
of this analysis we do not anticipate significant additional reductions
that would justify these higher costs.
As part of this analysis, the EPA evaluates potential over-control
with respect to whether (1) the expected ozone improvements would be
sufficient or greater than necessary to resolve the downwind ozone
pollution problem (i.e., resolving nonattainment or maintenance
problems) or (2) the expected ozone improvements would reduce upwind
state ozone contributions to below the screening threshold (i.e., 1% of
the NAAQS).
In EME Homer City, the Supreme Court held that EPA cannot
``require[ ] an upwind State to reduce emissions by more than the
amount necessary to achieve attainment in every downwind State to which
it is linked.'' 134 S.Ct. at 1608. On remand from the Supreme Court,
the D.C. Circuit held that this means that EPA might overstep its
authority ``when those downwind locations would achieve attainment even
if less stringent emissions limits were imposed on the upwind States
linked to those locations.'' EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 127. The
D.C. Circuit qualified this statement by noting that this ``does not
mean that every such upwind State would then be entitled to less
stringent emission limits. Some of those upwind States may still be
subject to the more stringent emissions limits so as not to cause other
downwind locations to which those States are linked to fall into
nonattainment.'' Id. at 14-15.
[[Page 75737]]
Consistent with these instructions from the Supreme Court and the
D.C. Circuit, the EPA evaluated whether reductions quantified under the
evaluated cost thresholds can be anticipated to resolve any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance problems (as defined in section V) and by
how much.
The EPA's assessment shows that the uniform control stringency
represented by $500 per ton would resolve the maintenance problem at
two downwind maintenance receptors--Ocean County, New Jersey (maximum
design value of 75.9 ppb) and Oldham County, Kentucky (maximum design
value of 75.8 ppb). Because no state is linked solely to one of these
maintenance receptors, resolving these downwind air quality impact does
not fully address any individual upwind state's good neighbor
obligation.
This assessment shows that the uniform control stringency
represented by $1,300 per ton would resolve maintenance problems at
three additional downwind maintenance receptors--Baltimore County,
Maryland (maximum design value of 75.6 ppb), Hamilton County, Ohio
(maximum design value of 75.1 ppb), and Gloucester County, New Jersey
(maximum design value of 75.8 ppb). The EPA's assessment shows that
this control level does resolve the only identified nonattainment or
maintenance problem to which North Carolina is linked for this
proposal--the Baltimore County, Maryland maintenance receptor. The EPA
therefore proposes that this EGU control level would fully address
North Carolina's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The EPA seeks comment on this determination.
The EPA also proposes that, based on the information supporting
this proposal, this level of EGU NOX control for North
Carolina would not constitute over-control as to the Baltimore County
receptor. The level of the 2008 ozone standard NAAQS is 75 ppb. At the
uniform $1,300 per ton cost threshold, EPA's assessment demonstrates
that the receptor would just be maintaining the standard, with a
maximum design value of 75.6 ppb. Therefore, the emissions reductions
that would be achieved at the $1,300 per ton cost threshold would not
result in air quality improvements at the Baltimore County receptor
significantly better than the standard such the emission reductions
might constitute over-control as to that receptor. On the contrary, the
emission reductions achieved in upwind states at the $1,300 per ton
cost threshold are necessary to bring the maximum design value at the
Baltimore County receptor into alignment with the standard. The EPA
also seeks comment on this determination.
For the remainder of the states for which the EPA is proposing FIPs
in this action, none of these states are linked solely to one of these
maintenance receptors with air quality resolved at the $1,300 per ton
cost threshold. Therefore, resolving these downwind air quality impacts
does not fully address any other individual upwind state's good
neighbor obligation.
As noted above the EPA is proposing that the $1,300 per ton EGU
control level would fully address North Carolina's good neighbor
obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, based on the
data supporting this proposal, North Carolina was excluded from
assessment of air quality improvements at more stringent uniform EGU
NOX control levels.
The EPA's assessment shows that the uniform control stringency
represented by $3,400 per ton would resolve the maintenance problem at
two additional downwind maintenance receptors--Denton County, Texas
(481211032) (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb) and Harris County, Texas
(482011050) (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb). Because no state is
linked solely to one of these maintenance receptors, resolving these
downwind air quality impacts does not fully address any individual
upwind state's good neighbor obligation.
The EPA provides this summary of the evaluation for the $500 per
ton; $1,300 per ton; and $3,400 per ton uniform cost thresholds
because, as described below, the EPA is proposing to use the $1,300 per
ton level and is taking comment on using the $500 per ton level or
$3,400 per ton level to quantify ozone season EGU NOX
requirements to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Further information on the EPA's evaluation of these cost
thresholds as well as additional cost thresholds ($5,000 per ton;
$6,400 per ton; and $10,000 per ton) are provided in the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document. Additionally,
Table VI.D-2 provides a summary of the expected number of nonattainment
and maintenance-only receptors at the adjusted base case and cost
thresholds.
Table VI.D-2--Number of Nonattainment or Maintenance Receptors After EGU
NOX Mitigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonattainment Maintenance-
Cost threshold receptors only receptors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case (IPM 5.15 w/CPP).............. 12 21
$500 per ton............................ 12 19
$1,300 per ton.......................... 12 14
$3,400 per ton.......................... 12 13
$5,000 per ton.......................... 12 13
$6,400 per ton.......................... 12 13
$10,000 per ton......................... 12 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In EME Homer City, the Supreme Court also held that ``EPA cannot
require a State to reduce its output of pollution . . . at odds with
the one-percent threshold the Agency has set.'' 134 S.Ct. at 1608. The
Court explained that ``EPA cannot demand reductions that would drive an
upwind State's contribution to every downwind State to which it is
linked below one percent of the relevant NAAQS.'' Id. Accordingly, the
EPA also evaluated the potential for over-control with respect to the
1% threshold proposed to be applied in this rulemaking at each relevant
cost threshold. Specifically, the EPA evaluated whether the uniform
cost thresholds would reduce upwind EGU emissions to a level where the
contribution from each upwind state would be below the 1% threshold
that linked the upwind state to the downwind receptors. If the EPA
found that any state's reduction obligation at the applied cost
threshold decreased its contribution to every downwind receptor to
which it is linked below the 1% threshold, we would need to adjust the
state's reduction obligation accordingly. The EPA's assessment
[[Page 75738]]
reveals that there is not over-control with respect to the 1% threshold
at any of the evaluated uniform costs in any upwind state; in fact,
even at the highest uniform cost threshold evaluated (e.g., $10,000 per
ton), all upwind states that contributed greater than or equal to the
1% threshold in the base case continued to contribute greater than or
equal to 1% of the NAAQS to at least one downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor.\99\ Therefore, the EPA does not expect any of the
uniform cost thresholds evaluated to result in over-control relative to
the 1% threshold. For more information about this assessment, refer to
the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ As discussed above, North Carolina would not be regulated
at any level higher than $1300/ton and at that level, there's no
over-control as to the 1% threshold. In fact, while the receptor to
which North Carolina is linked resolves its maintenance problem at
the $1,300/ton level, North Carolina would continue to contribute
equal to or greater than 1% to that air quality monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to determine ozone season EGU NOX
control requirements for upwind states to reduce interstate ozone
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the reduction potential
quantified from pollution control measures that are cost-effective at
the $1,300 per ton level. The EPA seeks comment on potentially basing
these ozone season NOX control requirements on uniform cost
levels that are less stringent ($500 per ton) or more stringent ($3,400
per ton), including comments on the proposed approach to addressing a
state like North Carolina in such a situation, which is explained
below.
The EPA notes that the evaluation of cost, NOX
reductions, and ozone improvements for the final rule could show
different results for different states. For example, one or more states
could fully address their good neighbor obligation based on ozone
season NOX control requirements represented by one cost
level while one or more other states would not fully address their good
neighbor obligation at that level and would have ozone season
NOX control requirements based on a more stringent cost
level in order to fully address or make further progress toward
partially addressing their good neighbor obligation. In this situation,
the EPA proposes that it would quantify requirements for these
different groups of states based on different uniform control
stringencies. This could be similar to EPA's establishing two different
SO2 groups under the original CSAPR as to addressing
PM2.5 transport. The EPA seeks comment on this proposed
approach for quantifying requirements.
The EPA also seeks comment on implementation of the resulting
emissions budgets. The EPA proposes that if there are groups of states
with ozone season NOX control requirements based on
different cost levels, we would nevertheless finalize FIPs for the
states in these groups of states that incorporate participation in a
trading program that allows them to trade allowances with each other
subject to limitations described in section VII of this proposal.
By way of example and as noted above, the EPA is also seeking
comment on potentially basing ozone season NOX control
requirements on the $3,400 per ton uniform cost levels. If the EPA were
to finalize ozone season NOX control requirements based on
this level, given the specific data informing this proposal, then the
EPA would set North Carolina's requirements based on the less stringent
$1,300 per ton level because, as discussed above, the sole receptor to
which North Carolina is linked for this proposal is resolved at the
$1,300 per ton level with a maximum design value of 75.6 ppb.
Therefore, because the $1,300 per ton level fully addresses North
Carolina's good neighbor obligation, if EPA were to determine ozone
season NOX control requirements based on the $3,400 per ton
level for the remainder of states, the EPA would finalize good neighbor
requirements for these two groups of states using different uniform
control stringencies. The EPA proposes that it would finalize FIPs for
the states that incorporate participation in a trading program that
allows them to trade allowances with each other subject to limitations
described in section VII of this proposal.
The EPA's selection of reductions for this proposed rule is
specific to, and appropriate for, defining near-term achievable upwind
obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in states where a FIP
is necessary. We do not intend--nor do we believe we would be justified
in doing so in any event--that the cost-level-based determinations in
this proposed rule impose a constraint for selection of cost levels in
addressing transported pollution with respect to future NAAQS and/or
any revisions to these FIPs for any other future transport rules that
the EPA may develop to address any potential remaining obligation as to
the current NAAQS, for which different cost levels may be appropriate.
As described above, the EPA is proposing that the NOX
emission reductions associated with uniform control stringency
represented by $1,300 per ton would not result in over-control at any
of the identified non-attainment or maintenance receptors and it is
reasonable to require such reductions from upwind states.
The EPA requests comment on its proposal to quantify ozone season
EGU NOX reductions to reduce interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS using the $1,300 per ton uniform cost
threshold.
Note that our assessment of EGU NOX reduction potential
shows zero reductions available in Delaware in 2017 at any evaluated
cost threshold. At this time, because the assessment shows no EGU
NOX reduction potential within Delaware up to $10,000 per
ton and because Delaware does not currently participate in the original
CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowance trading program, the EPA is
not proposing to promulgate a FIP for Delaware to be included in this
rule. However, as this assessment has only considered reductions
available at EGUs by 2017, the EPA cannot at this time conclude that
Delaware does not have reductions available on a longer timeframe or
from other emission sectors. Accordingly, the EPA cannot conclude at
this time that Delaware does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at downwind receptors to
which it is linked. The EPA will evaluate additional reduction
potential from Delaware in a future rulemaking to address the 2008
ozone standard. The EPA seeks comment on not including Delaware in the
proposed FIPs.
The EPA's EGU NOX reduction assessment also shows nearly
zero reductions available in Wisconsin in 2017 at the proposed $1,300
per ton cost threshold. However, Wisconsin currently participates in
the original CSAPR NOX ozone-season emissions trading
program and Wisconsin's original CSAPR NOX ozone emissions
budget is greater than its projected base case emissions. The EPA
proposes to update Wisconsin's emissions budgets because not doing so
would mean that Wisconsin, which is found to contribute above 1% to
downwind ozone problems, could increase emissions above its base case
level. The EPA proposes to determine ozone season NOX
control requirements for Wisconsin to reduce interstate ozone transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the reduction potential quantified
from pollution control measures that are cost-effective at the $1,300
per ton level. For Wisconsin, based on modeling for this proposal, this
level is similar to its projected base-case level. The EPA seeks
[[Page 75739]]
comment on the proposed FIP for Wisconsin.
The EPA also requests comment as to whether the EPA should treat
Delaware and Wisconsin in the same manner with respect to their
inclusion or exclusion from the ozone-season trading program with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For example, the EPA requests comment
as to whether both Delaware and Wisconsin should be included in the
ozone-season trading program with budgets on the reduction potential
quantified from pollution control measures that are cost-effective at
$1,300 per ton,. EPA also requests comment as to whether both states
should instead be excluded from the ozone-season trading program.
E. Quantifying State Emissions Budgets
The proposed emissions budgets reflect remaining EGU emissions
after upwind states achieve the emission reduction obligations defined
in section VI of this proposal.
In the original CSAPR proposal, the EPA set proposed emissions
budgets by using an approach that considered monitored state-level heat
input and modeled state-level emissions rates. However, for the CSAPR
final rule, the EPA set budgets using only the modeling results from
CSAPR's uniform cost assessment. For this rule, the EPA proposes to set
emissions budgets by considering monitored heat input and modeled
emissions rates, similar to the original CSAPR proposal. The EPA seeks
comment on all aspects of quantifying state emissions budgets
reflecting upwind obligations, including alternative metrics to heat
input, such as generation.
The EPA proposes to quantify state emissions budgets using the
minimum of calculated EGU emissions budgets using the state-level EGU
NOX emission rates that correspond to the upwind state
reductions identified above using a uniform cost threshold of $1,300
per ton or 2014 monitored historic emissions.
The proposed approach for translating this EGU NOX
reduction potential into emissions budgets is a four step process.
First, the EPA would use the resulting 2018 state-level modeled EGU
NOX emissions rate (lbs/mmBtu) from the IPM $1,300 per ton
uniform cost assessment. The state-level rate is calculated as the
total emissions from affected sources within the state, divided by the
total heat input from these sources. Second, the EPA proposes to
multiply this modeled state-level emissions rate by 2014 monitored
historic state-level heat input. Multiplying the projected state-level
emissions rate by historical heat input yields state-specific ozone
season EGU NOX emissions for 2018. Third, the EPA proposes
to add an adjustment to account for differences in unit availability
between the IPM 2018 run year and 2017, yielding state-specific ozone
season EGU NOX emissions for 2017. Finally, the EPA then
proposes EGU emissions budgets as the minimum of this calculated 2017
emission level or 2014 historic monitored emissions.
This proposed approach reflects the EGU NOX reduction
potential described above and grounds the EPA's quantification of
emissions budgets in historical data. The proposed EGU NOx ozone-season
emissions budgets calculated using this approach can be found in Table
VI.E-1. Tables VI.E-2 and VI.E-3 provide the EGU NOX ozone-
season emissions budgets reflecting EGU NOX mitigation
available for 2017 at $500 per ton and $3,400 per ton, respectively.
Table VI.E-1--Proposed EGU NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets, Reflecting EGU NOX Mitigation Available for 2017 at $1,300 per Ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 EGU NOX
2014 emissions 2018 $1,300/ton 2014 Heat Input 2017 adjustment Ozone-season
State (tons) emission rate (MMBtu) (tons) \100\ emissions budget
(lbs/MMBtu) (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... 21,075 0.049 410,477,094 0 9,979
Arkansas...................................................... 18,135 0.074 185,511,093 51 6,949
Illinois...................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 9 12,078
Indiana....................................................... 40,247 0.126 447,417,615 0 28,284
Iowa.......................................................... 13,857 0.11 151,989,571 0 8,351
Kansas........................................................ 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,272
Kentucky...................................................... 33,896 0.102 380,694,315 2,169 21,519
Louisiana..................................................... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,807
Maryland...................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,669 4,026
Michigan...................................................... 25,065 0.112 307,723,171 1,836 19,115
Mississippi................................................... 10,229 0.069 172,406,970 0 5,910
Missouri...................................................... 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,210 15,323
New Jersey.................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,015
New York...................................................... 5,547 0.038 235,619,397 0 4,450
North Carolina................................................ 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,275
Ohio.......................................................... 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,660
Oklahoma...................................................... 16,215 0.144 236,715,186 154 16,215
Pennsylvania.................................................. 44,551 0.057 508,608,673 0 14,387
Tennessee..................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,481
Texas......................................................... 58,492 0.079 1,474,773,212 33 58,002
Virginia...................................................... 9,695 0.076 179,324,728 0 6,818
West Virginia................................................. 29,420 0.084 317,087,558 0 13,390
Wisconsin..................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,561
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 State Region........................................... 478,610 ................ 7,581,393,627 ................ 311,867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75740]]
Table VI.E-2--Proposed EGU NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets, Reflecting EGU NOX Mitigation Available for 2017 at $500 per Ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 EGU NOX
2014 emissions 2018 $500/ton 2014 heat input 2017 adjustment ozone-season
State (tons) emission rate (MMBtu) (tons) \101\ emissions budget
(lbs/MMBtu) (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... 21,075 0.058 410,477,094 0 11,886
Arkansas...................................................... 18,135 0.075 185,511,093 51 7,038
Illinois...................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 23 12,144
Indiana....................................................... 40,247 0.15 447,417,615 0 33,483
Iowa.......................................................... 13,857 0.113 151,989,571 0 8,614
Kansas........................................................ 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,278
Kentucky...................................................... 33,896 0.149 380,694,315 4,463 32,783
Louisiana..................................................... 18,278 0.097 326,662,000 17 15,861
Maryland...................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,672 4,026
Michigan...................................................... 25,065 0.131 307,723,171 1,836 22,022
Mississippi................................................... 10,229 0.071 172,406,970 0 6,083
Missouri...................................................... 31,235 0.086 330,006,788 1,123 15,380
New Jersey.................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,016
New York...................................................... 5,547 0.039 235,619,397 0 4,607
North Carolina................................................ 16,759 0.078 315,255,877 0 12,278
Ohio.......................................................... 32,181 0.088 457,251,027 0 20,194
Oklahoma...................................................... 16,215 0.156 236,715,186 154 16,215
Pennsylvania.................................................. 44,551 0.15 508,608,673 0 38,270
Tennessee..................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,520
Texas......................................................... 58,492 0.083 1,474,773,212 0 58,492
Virginia...................................................... 9,695 0.078 179,324,728 0 6,955
West Virginia................................................. 29,420 0.145 317,087,558 0 22,932
Wisconsin..................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,588
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 State Region........................................... 478,610 ................ 7,581,393,627 ................ 371,665
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.E-3--Proposed EGU NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets, Reflecting EGU NOX Mitigation Available for 2017 at $3,400 per Ton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 EGU NOX
2014 emissions 2018 $3,400/ton 2014 heat input 2017 adjustment ozone-season
State (tons) emission rate (MMBtu) (tons) \102\ emissions budget
(lbs/MMBtu) (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... 21,075 0.048 410,477,094 0 9,931
Arkansas...................................................... 18,135 0.065 185,511,093 51 6,101
Illinois...................................................... 17,520 0.062 388,382,456 0 11,992
Indiana....................................................... 40,247 0.123 447,417,615 0 27,585
Iowa.......................................................... 13,857 0.107 151,989,571 0 8,118
Kansas........................................................ 12,297 0.12 154,921,650 0 9,259
Kentucky...................................................... 33,896 0.099 380,694,315 2,169 20,945
Louisiana..................................................... 18,278 0.094 326,662,000 17 15,378
Maryland...................................................... 4,026 0.05 86,239,563 2,523 4,026
Michigan...................................................... 25,065 0.108 307,723,171 1,978 18,624
Mississippi................................................... 10,229 0.064 172,406,970 0 5,487
Missouri...................................................... 31,235 0.083 330,006,788 1,500 15,240
New Jersey.................................................... 2,746 0.036 112,887,439 0 2,011
New York...................................................... 5,547 0.037 235,619,397 0 4,391
North Carolina................................................ 16,759 0.068 315,255,877 0 10,705
Ohio.......................................................... 32,181 0.073 457,251,027 0 16,637
Oklahoma...................................................... 16,215 0.137 236,715,186 146 16,215
Pennsylvania.................................................. 44,551 0.056 508,608,673 0 14,358
Tennessee..................................................... 8,057 0.056 196,132,311 0 5,449
Texas......................................................... 58,492 0.076 1,474,773,212 100 55,864
Virginia...................................................... 9,695 0.065 179,324,728 0 5,834
West Virginia................................................. 29,420 0.078 317,087,558 0 12,367
Wisconsin..................................................... 9,087 0.054 205,305,933 0 5,511
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 State Region........................................... 478,610 ................ 7,581,393,627 ................ 302,028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75741]]
VII. Implementation Using the Existing CSAPR NOX Ozone-
Season Allowance Trading Program and Relationship to Other Rules
A. Background
This section describes implementing and enforcing the budgets
quantified in section VI. In the 4-step CSAPR methodology previously
described, once emission reduction potential is quantified into
emissions budgets, the remaining step is to identify an approach for
ensuring that such reductions occur and are enforceable. As discussed
previously, EPA is proposing implement the budgets to address the 2008
ozone NAAQS using the existing CSAPR trading program that allows
limited interstate trading among states participating in the ozone-
season trading program. The EPA proposes to revise the existing
budgets, developed to address transport as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
where necessary to reflect the additional reductions that the EPA
identified as necessary to address transport as to the 2008 NAAQS. The
EPA will implement the trading program in each affected state through
the issuance of a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used in
calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because it would push their
budget above their 2014 emissions.
\101\ The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used in
calculating for Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas because it would push
their budget above their 2014 emissions.
\102\ The entire 2017 Adjustment listed is not used in
calculating for Maryland and Oklahoma because it would push their
budget above their 2014 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In electing to propose to implement these near-term EGU reductions
for the 2008 ozone standard using the existing CSAPR trading
infrastructure, the EPA considered the many significant advantages of
continuing to use the existing CSAPR program, including the ease of
transition to the new budgets, the economic and administrative
efficiency of trading approaches, and the flexibility afforded to
sources regarding compliance.
The EPA also considered views expressed by some stakeholders that a
complementary short-term (e.g., 30-day) rate-based limit would ensure
that control measures adopted to meet the revised budgets continue to
operate over time. Some stakeholders have observed, for example, that
some existing SCR and SNCR units may not have operated in recent years
because CAIR allowance prices are below the operating costs of the
controls. The EPA notes that in such cases, the CAIR emissions budgets
that states were required to meet to address significant contribution
for the 1997 NAAQS were in fact still being met. The EPA will also
evaluate power sector behavior for 2015, the first year of CSAPR
implementation, and provide that assessment for the final rule. The EPA
expects that certain aspects of this proposal will alleviate some of
these concerns. In particular, this proposal is aimed at establishing
new, lower emissions budgets that are calculated based on a uniform
cost that is reflective of, among other things, operating those
controls. Furthermore, as described later in this notice, we are
proposing adjustments to the CSAPR regulations that, if adopted, would
address the role that the banked allowances may play in allowance
prices. For these reasons, the EPA does not believe that including a
short-term complementary rate-based limit in the proposed FIPs is
necessary. Nevertheless, we invite comment on the need for such an
approach and, from commenters arguing that it is needed, we invite
suggestions for calculating it.
As explained in greater detail in section IV, under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that
provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
primary or secondary NAAQS. According to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
the SIP for each state, regardless of a state's designation status for
the relevant NAAQS, must prohibit sources or other types of emissions
activity from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' of the standard in a
downwind state or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the standard in a
downwind state. Section IV also explains in detail that the EPA is
obligated to promulgate FIPs when we find that a state fails to submit
a complete SIP or the EPA disapproves a SIP submittal.
The EPA recognizes that several states included in this proposal
have submitted transport SIPs to address the 2008 ozone standard that
the EPA is reviewing, and it is possible that additional states may
submit SIPs in the future. As explained in section IV above, the EPA
may only finalize FIPs for states where FIP authority exists; that is,
for states where either the EPA found that the state failed to submit a
complete transport SIP or where the EPA has disapproved a transport SIP
submittal for that state. The EPA intends to finalize these proposed
FIPs together in a single action and, to the greatest extent possible,
the EPA intends to take final action on SIP submittals currently before
the agency prior to finalizing this proposal. In the event that a state
plans to revise its SIP or submit a SIP prior to any final rule,
contact your regional office to alert the EPA.
By this action, the EPA is proposing federal implementation plans
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for each state potentially covered
by this rule. Section VI above describes the EPA's approach to defining
state-level EGU emissions budgets that represent the EGU emissions
remaining after reducing that state's significant contribution to
downwind nonattainment and/or interference with maintenance. The EPA is
proposing to implement these EGU emissions budgets in the FIPs through
the CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season trading program.
When the EPA finalized CSAPR in 2011 under the good neighbor
provision of the CAA to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX from power plants in eastern states, the rule put in
place regional trading programs to quickly and cost-effectively address
pollution that affects air quality in downwind states. The EPA
envisioned that the methodology could be used to address transport
concerns under other existing NAAQS and future NAAQS revisions. See 76
FR 48211 and 48246, August 8, 2011. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
use the CSAPR ozone-season trading program and related provisions as
codified under 40 CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB and section 52.38, as
amended in this proposal, to implement the proposed EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This program
will be initially implemented in each state through a FIP.
In this notice, the EPA proposes that the first control period for
the requirements is the 2017 ozone season. A covered state would be
required to demonstrate compliance with FIP requirements for each
subsequent ozone season until it submits, and the EPA approves, a SIP
or the EPA promulgates another federal rule replacing the FIP.
The EPA notes that the compliance flexibility provided by the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program allows sources to
demonstrate compliance by holding allowances and does not prescribe
unit-specific and technology-specific NOX mitigation. In
other words, while the EPA quantified EGU NOX reductions
resulting from mitigation strategies such as operating or installing
(or upgrading to) state-of-the-art combustion controls, no particular
reduction strategy is required for any specific unit because the Act
only requires that an upwind state's aggregate emissions neither
significantly contribute to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in a downwind state.
[[Page 75742]]
In practice, the EGU emissions budgets that the EPA is proposing in
this action are achievable for each of the 23 states through operating
existing SCR and SNCR controls, installing or upgrading to state-of-
the-art combustion controls, or shifting generation to low-
NOX emitting units. The EPA believes that this proposed rule
provides sufficient lead time to implement these control strategies by
the 2017 ozone season. For the EPA's assessment of the feasibility of
controls for 2017, refer to section VI above and the EGU NOX
Reduction TSD in the docket for this proposal.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ The EPA notes that a state can instead require non-EGU
NOX emission reductions through a SIP, if they choose to
do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section of the preamble, the following topics are
addressed: FIP requirements and key elements of the CSAPR trading
programs; participation in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program with a new budget; source monitoring and reporting;
replacing the FIP with a SIP; title V permitting; and the relationship
of this proposed rule to existing programs (NOX SIP Call,
CSAPR trading programs, Clean Power Plan (CPP), and other ozone
transport programs).
B. FIP Requirements and Key Elements of the CSAPR Trading Programs
The original CSAPR establishes an NOX ozone-season
allowance trading program that allows covered sources within each state
to trade allowances with other sources within the same trading group.
Pursuant to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program,
sources are required to hold one allowance for each ton of
NOX emitted during the ozone season. We propose to use that
same regional trading program, with adjusted budgets and certain
additional revisions described below, as the compliance remedy for the
proposed FIPs to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The first control period
for this updated CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program is
proposed to begin with the 2017 ozone season, on May 1, 2017.
In this section, the EPA is proposing to use the existing
NOX ozone-season allowance trading system that was
established under CSAPR in 40 CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB, to implement
the emission reductions identified and quantified in the FIPs for this
action.
1. Applicability
In this proposed rule, the EPA would maintain the applicability
provisions in the final CSAPR rule for the NOX ozone-season
trading program (see 40 CFR 97.504).
Under the general applicability provisions of the CSAPR final rule,
a covered unit is any stationary fossil-fuel-fired boiler or combustion
turbine serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a generator
with nameplate capacity exceeding 25 MW producing electricity for sale,
with the exception of certain cogeneration units and solid waste
incineration units (see 76 FR 48273, August 8, 2011, for a discussion
on applicability in the final CSAPR rule). The EPA is not proposing any
changes to this provision.
2. State Budgets
This proposal includes revisions to 40 CFR 97.510 to reflect new
budgets for states covered under this proposal as delineated in section
VI above. This includes the NOX ozone-season trading
budgets, new unit set-asides, and Indian country new unit set-asides
for 2017 and beyond, described in further detail below.
For states already covered by the original CSAPR ozone-season
program, the EPA proposes to update CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-
season budgets to reflect obligations to reduce interstate transport to
address the 2008 ozone standard. For states that are newly brought into
the CSAPR ozone-season program because emissions from the states
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a downwind state (i.e., Kansas based on
information used to develop this proposal), the proposal includes an
EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budget. For states currently
in the CSAPR ozone-season trading program, but not identified as
contributing to interstate ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS (i.e.,
Georgia based on information used to develop this proposal),
participation in CSAPR would continue unchanged pursuant to their
previously-defined obligation (budget) with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
The EPA proposes to establish reduced or new ozone-season emissions
budgets for the 23 eastern states affected by the transport rule for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposes to implement these emissions
budgets by allocating allowances to sources in those states equal to
the proposed budgets for compliance starting in 2017. The EPA will
establish allowance allocations for the existing units in each state
through this rulemaking. Portions of the state budgets will be set
aside for new units, and the EPA will use the existing processes set
forth in the CSAPR regulations to annually allocate allowances to the
new units in each state from the new unit set-asides. For states that
are currently in the CSAPR ozone-season program, but are not affected
under this proposed transport rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e.,
Georgia based on information used to develop this proposal), the EPA
will maintain the state's budget as finalized in the original CSAPR
rulemakings.
3. Allocations of Emission Allowances
Pursuant to the CSAPR trading program regulations, a covered source
is required to hold sufficient allowances to cover the emissions from
all covered units at the source during the control period for the
NOX ozone season. The EPA assesses compliance with these
allowance-holding requirements at the source (i.e., facility) level.
This section explains that the EPA proposes to allocate a state's
budget to existing units and new units in that state by applying the
same allocation approach as finalized in CSAPR, based on a unit's
historical heat input and its maximum historical emissions (see 76 FR
48284, August 8, 2011). This section also describes allocation for
Tribes, the new unit set-asides and Indian country new unit set-asides
in each state, allocations to units that are not operating; and the
recordation of allowance allocations in source compliance accounts.
A. Allocations for Existing Units
The EPA proposes to implement each state's EGU NOX
ozone-season emissions budget in the trading program by allocating the
number of emission allowances to sources within that state, equivalent
to the tonnage of that specific state budget, as shown in section VI.
For these 23 states, the EPA would allocate allowances under each
state's budget to covered units in that state. The portion of a state
budget allocated to existing units in that state is the state budget
minus the new unit set-aside and minus the Indian country new unit set-
aside. The new unit set-asides are portions of each budget reserved for
new units that might locate in each state or in Indian country in the
future. For the existing source level allocations, see the TSD called,
``Existing Source Level Allocations for the 2008 NOX Ozone-
season Rule FIPs,'' in the docket for this rulemaking. The methodology
used to allocate allowances to individual units in a particular state
has no impact on that state's budget.
For the purpose of allocations, an ``existing unit'' in CSAPR is
one that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1, 2010. For
the 23 states included in this proposed rulemaking for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA proposes to identify an ``existing unit''
[[Page 75743]]
as one that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1, 2015.
EPA has updated information on affected units that have commenced
commercial operation prior to January 1, 2015 (currently defined either
as existing units or as new units pursuant to the current CSAPR
regulations) that would allow these units to be considered existing
units for purposes of allocations and would allow new unit set-asides
to be fully reserved for any future new units in affected states or
Indian country. The EPA is not proposing to change the January 1, 2010
date for states that remain in the original CSAPR and are not affected
by the changes proposed here (i.e., Georgia with respect to the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season allowances and all states with respect to
CSAPR SO2 or NOX annual allowances); thus, the
only allowance allocations that are proposed to be changed in this
rulemaking for any units under any of the CSAPR trading programs are
allocations of NOX ozone-season allowances from budgets that
are proposed to be revised in this proposed rule.
The EPA proposes to follow the original CSAPR methodology for
distributing, or allocating, emission allowances to existing units
based on the unit's share of the state's heat input, limited by the
unit's maximum historical emissions. This approach uses the highest
three of the last five years to establish the heat input baseline for
each unit, and constrains the unit-level allocations so as not to
exceed the maximum historical baseline emissions during 2007-2014. As
discussed in the original CSAPR final rule (see 76 FR 48288-9, August
8, 2011), the EPA finds no advantage or disadvantage in this approach
that would penalize those units that have already invested in cleaner
fuels or other pollution reduction measures. The EPA considers this
allocation approach to be fuel-neutral, control-neutral, transparent,
based on reliable data, and similar to allocation methodologies
previously used in the NOX SIP Call and Acid Rain Program.
The EPA requests comments on following the CSAPR approach for existing
unit allocations in states covered by this proposed rule as to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
For states that have EPA-approved abbreviated SIP revisions
adopting a different allocation methodology for sources located within
the state for CSAPR for the 2017 ozone season and beyond, those
provisions would address the allocation of revised NOX
ozone-season emissions budgets established under this proposed rule,
provided that the SIP revision includes not only specific allocations
given the total state budget expected at the time of the SIP revision,
but also a methodology for determining allocations from any given total
state budget. For states that have EPA-approved full SIP revisions, the
EPA proposes to use the EPA-approved allocation provisions of the
state's SIP revision to allocate allowances to sources in that
particular state using the revised emissions budget proposed to address
interstate ozone transport for the 2008 NAAQS, again provided that the
SIP includes not only specific allocations but a methodology for
determining allocations from any given total state budget.
Further, where the state regulation approved as a full or
abbreviated SIP revision does not contain an allocation methodology but
the materials submitted by the state to support EPA's approval of that
regulation as a SIP revision contain the state's allocation method,
described in an unambiguous manner, the EPA seeks comment on using that
state-approved methodology to determine the allocations of allowances
to sources in the state under the FIPs established in this proposed
rule. These possible approaches could prevent a state from needing to
submit another SIP revision to implement the same allocation provisions
under this proposed rule that the state has already implemented under
CSAPR before adoption of this proposed rule.
For all other states, the EPA proposes to use the allocation method
previously finalized in the final CSAPR rulemaking as discussed in this
section. These provisions would not prevent any state (one with an EPA-
approved SIP revision or without) from submitting an alternative
allocation methodology under this proposed rule for later compliance
years. EPA requests comment on this modified allocation approach for
states with EPA-approved SIP revisions under the current rule.
b. Allocations for New Units
For the purpose of allocations, CSAPR identifies a ``new unit'' as
one that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010,
and provides a methodology for allocating emission allowances to new
units from new unit set-asides in each state and to new units that
locate in Indian country. See 76 FR 48290-48294 (Aug. 8, 2011), for
more information. The FIPs that EPA is proposing will incorporate a
trading program in which EPA is proposing to define a covered unit as a
``new unit'' if it commences commercial operation on or after January
1, 2015; if it becomes covered by meeting applicability criteria
subsequent to January 1, 2015; if it relocates into a different state
covered by this FIP; or if it was an ``existing'' covered unit that
stopped operating for 2 consecutive years but resumes commercial
operation at some point thereafter. To the extent that states seek
approval of SIPs with different allocation provisions than EPA, these
SIPs may seek to define new units differently.
The EPA further proposes that its trading program will make
allocations to each state for new units (the new unit set-aside) equal
to a basic minimum 2 percent of the total state budget, plus the
projected amount of emissions from planned units in that state (for
instance, if planned units in state A are projected to emit 3 percent
of the state's NOX ozone-season emissions budget, then the
new unit set-aside for the state would be set at 5 percent, consisting
of the basic minimum 2 percent plus an additional 3 percent for planned
units). See 76 FR 48292. New units may receive allocations starting
with the first year they are subject to the allowance-holding
requirements of the rule. If unallocated to new units, set-asides are
redistributed to unretired existing units before the compliance
deadline. The EPA requests comments on following the CSAPR approach for
new unit allocations under this proposal. (For more detail on the CSAPR
new unit set-aside provisions, see 40 CFR 97.511(b) and 97.512.)
The EPA notes that applying the CSAPR approach using the data for
this proposal results in a new-unit set-aside for New Jersey that is
greater than 50% of the total proposed EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budget for the state. This result is influenced by the EPA's
projected emissions rates for new units that are anticipated to come
online within states. The EPA seeks comment on these data, which are
available in the IPM documentation in the docket for this proposal.
Further, the EPA seeks comment on whether additional data should be
considered--for example, reported NOX emission rates of
recently constructed new NGCC units in each state.
[[Page 75744]]
Table VII.B-1--Proposed EGU NOX Ozone-Season New-Unit Set-Aside Amounts, Reflecting Proposed EGU Emissions
Budgets (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed EGU
NOX emissions New-unit set- New-unit set- Indian country
State budgets aside amount aside amount set-aside
(tons) (percent) (tons) amount (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... 9,979 2 205
Arkansas........................................ 6,949 2 141
Illinois........................................ 12,078 5 591
Indiana......................................... 28,284 2 565
Iowa............................................ 8,351 5 419 8
Kansas.......................................... 9,272 3 281 9
Kentucky........................................ 21,519 3 647
Louisiana....................................... 15,807 4 628 16
Maryland........................................ 4,026 12 485
Michigan........................................ 19,115 2 382 19
Mississippi..................................... 5,910 10 590 6
Missouri........................................ 15,323 2 314
New Jersey...................................... 2,015 57 1,151
New York........................................ 4,450 2 93 4
North Carolina.................................. 12,275 2 248 12
Ohio............................................ 16,660 2 337
Oklahoma........................................ 16,215 2 325 16
Pennsylvania.................................... 14,387 7 1,017
Tennessee....................................... 5,481 2 109
Texas........................................... 58,002 5 2,910 58
Virginia........................................ 6,818 27 1,844
West Virginia................................... 13,390 2 268
Wisconsin....................................... 5,561 2 121 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
23 State Region............................. 311,867 .............. 13,671 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Allocations for Tribes and New Units in Indian Country
Tribes are not required to submit tribal implementation plans.
However, as explained in the EPA's regulations outlining Tribal Clean
Air Act authority, the EPA is authorized to promulgate FIPs for Indian
country as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality if a tribe
does not submit and get EPA approval of a tribal implementation plan.
See 40 CFR 49.11(a); see also 42 U.S.C. 7601(d)(4). For this proposed
ozone rule, there are no existing affected units in Indian country in
the states affected by this rule.
Under the current rule, allowances to possible future new units
locating in Indian country are allocated by the EPA from an Indian
country new unit set-aside established for each state with Indian
country. (See 40 CFR 97.511(b)(2) and 97.512(b).) Because states
generally have no SIP authority in reservation areas of Indian country
and other areas of Indian country over which a tribe or EPA has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, the EPA continues to
allocate such allowances to sources locating in such areas of Indian
country within a state even if the state submits a SIP to replace the
FIP. (40 CFR 52.38(b)(5)(v) and (vi) and 52.38(b)(6).) The EPA reserves
0.1 percent of the total state budget for new units in Indian country
within that state (5 percent of the basic 2 percent new unit set-aside
prior to any increase in a state's new unit set-aside amount for
planned units). Unallocated allowances from a state's Indian country
new unit set-aside are returned to the state's new unit set-aside and
allocated according to the methodology described above. The EPA
requests comment on following the CSAPR approach for new unit
allocations in such areas of Indian country under the transport rule
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
d. Units That Do Not Operate and the New Unit Set-Aside
The EPA proposes to continue to apply for purposes of this proposed
rule the existing CSAPR provision under which a covered unit that does
not operate for a period of two consecutive years will receive
allowance allocations for a total of up to five years of non-operation.
40 CFR 97.511(a)(2). Starting in the fifth year after the first year of
non-operation, allowances allocated to such units will instead be
allocated to the new unit set-aside for the state in which the non-
operating unit is located. This approach allows the new unit set-asides
to grow over time. The EPA requests comment on retaining this timeline
for allowance allocation for non-operating units or changing the
allowance allocation for non-operating units to, for instance, two
years or three years, in which case allowances would revert to the new
unit set-aside in the second or third year after the first of two
consecutive years of non-operation of a unit.
4. Variability Limits, Assurance Levels, and Penalties
In the original CSAPR, the EPA developed assurance provisions,
including variability limits and assurance levels (with associated
compliance penalties), to assure that each state will meet its
pollution control obligations and to accommodate inherent year-to-year
variability in state-level EGU operations.
The original CSAPR budgets, and the updated CSAPR emissions budgets
proposed in this notice, reflect EGU operations in an ``average year.''
However, year-to-year variability in EGU operations occurs due to the
interconnected nature of the power sector and from changing weather
patterns, demand growth, or disruptions in electricity supply from
other units or from the transmission grid. Recognizing this, the FIP
includes variability limits, which define the amount by which state
emissions may exceed the level of the budgets in a given year to
account for this variability in EGU operations. A
[[Page 75745]]
state's budget plus its variability limit equals a state's assurance
level, which acts as a cap on each state's NOX emissions
during a control period (that is, during the May-September ozone season
in the case of this rule).
To establish the variability limits in the original CSAPR, the EPA
analyzed historical state-level heat input variability as a proxy for
emissions variability, assuming constant emission rates. (See 76 FR
48265, August 8, 2011.) The variability limits for ozone-season
NOX in the original CSAPR were calculated as 21 percent of
each state's budget, and these variability limits were then codified in
40 CFR 97.510 along with the state budgets. Applying the CSAPR
approach, the EPA proposes to set new variability limits applying the
same 21 percent figure as determined in the original CSAPR to this
proposed rule's budgets. The EPA proposes that the same 21% figure is
appropriate to use because variability in state-level heat input across
a multi-year period is expected to be relatively consistent around
long-term trends. The EPA seeks comment on this approach. Table VII.B-2
shows the proposed EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets,
variability limits, and assurance levels for each state.
Table VII.B-2--Proposed EGU NOX Ozone-Season Emissions Budgets Reflecting EGU NOX Mitigation Available for 2017
at $1,300 per Ton, Variability Limits, and Assurance Levels (Tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU NOX ozone- EGU NOX ozone-
State season emissions Variability season assurance
budgets limits levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... 9,979 2,096 12,075
Arkansas.................................................. 6,949 1,459 8,408
Illinois.................................................. 12,078 2,536 14,614
Indiana................................................... 28,284 5,940 34,224
Iowa...................................................... 8,351 1,754 10,105
Kansas.................................................... 9,272 1,947 11,219
Kentucky.................................................. 21,519 4,519 26,038
Louisiana................................................. 15,807 3,319 19,126
Maryland.................................................. 4,026 845 4,871
Michigan.................................................. 19,115 4,014 23,129
Mississippi............................................... 5,910 1,241 7,151
Missouri.................................................. 15,323 3,218 18,541
New Jersey................................................ 2,015 423 2,438
New York.................................................. 4,450 935 5,385
North Carolina............................................ 12,275 2,578 14,853
Ohio...................................................... 16,660 3,499 20,159
Oklahoma.................................................. 16,215 3,405 19,620
Pennsylvania.............................................. 14,387 3,021 17,408
Tennessee................................................. 5,481 1,151 6,632
Texas..................................................... 58,002 12,180 70,182
Virginia.................................................. 6,818 1,432 8,250
West Virginia............................................. 13,390 2,812 16,202
Wisconsin................................................. 5,561 1,168 6,729
-----------------------------------------------------
Region cap............................................ 311,867 65,493 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assurance provisions include penalties that are triggered when
the state emissions as a whole exceed its assurance level. The original
CSAPR provided that a state that exceeds its assurance level in a given
year is assessed a total of 3-to-1 allowance surrender on the excess
tons. Each excess ton above the assurance level must be met with one
allowance for normal compliance plus two additional allowances to
satisfy the penalty. The penalty is designed to deter state-level
emissions from exceeding assurance levels. This was referred to in the
original CSAPR as air quality-assured trading that accounts for
variability in the electricity sector but also ensures that the
necessary emission reductions occur within each covered state. If a
state does not exceed its assurance level, no penalties are incurred by
any source. Establishing assurance levels with compliance penalties
therefore responds to the court's holding in North Carolina requiring
the EPA to assure that sources in each state were required to eliminate
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 531 F.3d at 908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the penalty under the assurance provisions, the EPA
evaluates whether any state's total EGU emissions in a control period
exceeded the state's assurance level, and if so, the EPA then
determines which owners and operators of units in the state will be
subject to an allowance surrender requirement based on each source's
emissions as compared to its unit-level assurance level. Since a single
designated representative (DR) often represents multiple sources, the
EPA evaluates which groups of units at the common DR level had
emissions exceeding the respective common DR's share of the state
assurance level, regardless of whether the individual source had enough
allowances to cover its emissions during the control period. This
provision is triggered only if two criteria are met: (1) The group of
sources and units with a common DR are located in a state where the
total state EGU emissions for a control period exceed the state
assurance level; and (2) that group with the common DR had emissions
exceeding the respective DR's share of the state assurance level.
For more information on the CSAPR assurance provisions see 76 FR
48294 (August 8, 2011).
5. Implementation Approaches for Transitioning the Existing CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Program To Address Transport for a Newer
NAAQS
Consistent with the original CSAPR approach, EPA proposes that in
this updated rulemaking, EGUs would be
[[Page 75746]]
able to trade NOX ozone-season emission allowances among
units within the state and across state boundaries, with emissions and
use of allowances limited by the assurance provisions. The following
sections describe approaches to transition the existing CSAPR program
designed for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address interstate ozone transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
A primary focus of this section is the extent to which allowances
created to address interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, reflecting emissions budgets at $500 per ton, are fungible with
allowances created under this proposal to address interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, reflecting emissions budgets at $1,300 per
ton. The EPA proposes that these implementation tools are not
presumptively equivalent, given that they were developed to address
ozone transport under different NAAQS and using different cost
thresholds. However, as further discussed below, the EPA is proposing
approaches under which allowances allocated under budgets established
to address the 1997 NAAQS could be used for compliance for addressing
interstate transport for the 2008 NAAQS, subject to specific
limitations. The EPA is also taking comment on several other approaches
for addressing the transition from a program in which all budgets were
established based on an integrated analysis using a single control cost
threshold to address the 1997 NAAQS to a program with a mix of budgets
established in independent analyses using different control cost
thresholds, in some cases to address the 1997 NAAQS and in other cases
to address the 2008 NAAQS.
a. Use of CSAPR Ozone-season Trading Program Bank in the Transport Rule
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Trading Program
Since CSAPR was promulgated in 2011, the U.S. electric sector has
undergone considerable transformation primarily due to economic and
market forces precipitated by the natural gas boom. For example, Henry
Hub natural gas prices reached below $2.00 per million BTU in 2012 and
were in the $2.00-$3.00 range for most of 2012. These prices are below
the level initially anticipated when establishing the phase 1 and 2
budgets, and have made the operation of lower emitting units more
competitive, putting more downward pressure on emissions. There has
also been turnover in the power generation fleet as newer, lower
emitting sources replace older, higher emitting sources, putting
further downward pressure on emissions. Approximately 28.5 GW of coal
units retired from the fleet between 2012 and June of 2015. In
addition, demand growth has slowed; a majority of U.S. states have
implemented renewable portfolio standards and other energy efficiency
programs; and high-efficiency building designs, residential energy
conservation, roof-top solar, and other forms of distributed generation
have grown. In combination, these factors have significantly reduced
EGU NOX emissions between 2012 and 2015.
As a result of protracted litigation, CSAPR implementation was
delayed by three years, from 2012 to 2015. Due to this delay, combined
with the market forces and changes that took place during that
timeframe, expectations are that total banked allowances for the CSAPR
ozone-season trading program could be in excess of 210,000 tons by the
start of the 2017 ozone-season compliance period, which is more than
twice the emission reduction potential estimated at the $1,300 per ton
control level described in section VI above. This number was estimated
by comparing recent measured emission levels to the original CSAPR
NOX ozone-season phase 1 emissions budgets, assuming EGU
emissions in CSAPR NOX ozone-season states for 2015 and 2016
would continue at 2014 levels.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ This data analysis relies on 40 CFR part 75 emissions
reporting data as available in EPA Air Markets Program Data
available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of allowance banks generally provide a glide path for
sources required to meet more stringent emission limits in later years
and accommodate year-to-year variability in operation. However,
allowing unrestricted use of the large number of banked allowances for
compliance with this proposed rule could result in regional 2017 ozone
season NOX emissions that exceed the collective state
budgets quantified in this rulemaking to address transported air
pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone standard. While the assurance
provisions included in CSAPR do limit the ultimate amount of pollution
that may occur in these states in 2017 (i.e., no matter how large an
allowance bank may exist, only a portion of that bank may be used in a
state in any given year without exceeding the assurance levels and
incurring penalties), unrestricted use of the bank in this situation
could allow emissions to exceed the state budgets, up to the assurance
level, year after year.
As described in CSAPR, the flexibility provided by the assurance
provisions is not designed to be used repeatedly, year after year.
Rather, the use of banked allowances is intended to be limited by
binding emissions budgets such that drawing down the bank in one year
is only possible because of actions taken to build up the bank in a
previous year. Moreover, a relatively large allowance bank that enables
emissions budgets to be exceeded year after year may encourage sources
to postpone emission reductions that would be more timely in the 2017
timeframe in order to align reductions with the downwind area
attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing and taking comment on a range of options for
how to treat the use of banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX
ozone-season allowances by units in the 23 states with new or updated
budgets in this proposal. The use of banked allowances by states that
are not included in the proposed FIPs to address ozone transport under
the 2008 NAAQS (i.e., Georgia for CSAPR NOX ozone-season
program and all states for CSAPR SO2 and NOX
annual programs) would not be affected by these options.
The EPA is proposing that allowances issued for compliance in 2015
and 2016 under CSAPR may be used for compliance under the updated CSAPR
from 2017 forward in order to smooth implementation in the first few
years under the new budgets. However, the EPA is proposing to impose
certain limits on the use of these banked allowances starting in 2017.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that sources in the 23 states with
new or updated budgets in this proposal may use all of their banked
allowances, but at a tonnage authorization level significantly lower
than one ton per allowance. This would be realized through a surrender
ratio greater than one pre-2017 allowances (vintage 2015 or 2016) to
cover one ton of NOX emitted in 2017 and each year
thereafter. The surrender ratio, such as four-for-one or two-for-one,
would require more than one pre-2017 banked allowance to be used for
each ton of ozone season NOX emitted in 2017 and beyond.
This would have the dual effect of carrying over the banked allowances
into the new program to promote program continuity, while also
recognizing the environmental objectives of the updated ozone NAAQS for
2008 and the corresponding new state emission budgets designed to help
move air quality towards compliance with that NAAQS standard. A
surrender ratio would respect the flexibility of sources to operate at
their assurance levels in the program's early years, but would reduce
the ability for the collective EGU fleet to repeatedly
[[Page 75747]]
exceed the emissions budget year after year.
Finally, EPA believes a surrender ratio is appropriate as it
reflects the fact that tighter budgets will put upward pressure on
allowance value in the future. Therefore, fewer allowances will be
needed to reach the same value of a current allowance holding, making a
surrender ratio a natural complement to carrying over the value of the
banked allowances in a program where more stringent emission budgets
are replacing less stringent emission budgets.
EPA is proposing a surrender ratio greater than one-for-one, such
as two-for-one or four-for-one. For analytic purposes in this
rulemaking, it reflects the four-for-one surrender ratio to illustrate
one potential surrender ratio. However, in the final rule, EPA would
update this assumption to reflect the surrender ratio finalized.
This ratio of four or two banked allowances to one ton of emissions
is derived from the ratio of the anticipated allowance bank in 2017
(approximately 210,000 allowances) to the ozone season variability
limit (i.e., the difference between the sum of the emissions budgets
for all 23 states and the sum of the assurance levels for all 23
states; approximately 60,000 tons) or the ozone season variability
limit multiplied by two (120,000 tons), rounded to the nearest whole
number. The EPA identified this approach to limit the emissions impact
of using banked allowances to the magnitude of all states emitting up
to their assurance levels for one or two years. The variability limit
respects the upper bound variation in emissions and load EPA would
expect in any given year. Thus, the carryover of banked allowances
equal to one or two years' worth of variability limits provides the
affected fleet with the ability to accommodate potential variation from
the mean in its load and emission patterns in the first years of the
program, while balancing the need to ensure that emissions are reduced,
on average, to the level of the budgets and within the assurance levels
in subsequent years.
The EPA believes that a surrender ratio approach provides a means
for the existing CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season allowances to
retain some value, while appropriately mitigating the potential adverse
impact of the allowance bank on the emission-reducing actions needed
from affected units in states with obligations to address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA seeks comment on a
surrender ratio approach and on the use of a ratio, such as two-for-one
or four-for-one, and whether an alternative ratio would be appropriate.
The EPA is also soliciting comment on another approach that we
believe could achieve these same goals (i.e., valuing the anticipated
CSAPR allowance bank while promoting near-term emission reductions).
Under this alternative approach, the EPA would issue fewer allowances
than the tons quantified in state budgets for the 23 states affected by
this rulemaking in the first three years of program implementation
(i.e. 2017, 2018, and 2019). This approach recognizes that 2015 and
2016 allowances are available to sources for compliance and would allow
use of those banked CSAPR NOX ozone allowances at a one-to-
one turn-in ratio (i.e., one allowance is surrendered for one ton of
emissions). By reducing overall allocations for a period of time, the
impact of states using those banked allowances on emission levels would
be mitigated.
The EPA seeks comment on what percentage (below 100 percent) of
allowances to issue, and over what number of years, under this
alternative approach. As a specific example, the EPA seeks comment on
implementing this approach in a manner such that the EPA would issue
allowances to sources within each of the 23 states with updated budgets
under this proposal at a level of 85 percent of the proposed emissions
budgets for the first three years that the new budgets are effective.
Using the proposed EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budget of
9,979 tons for Alabama as an example, this would mean issuing
approximately 8,482 allowances for each of the 2017 through 2019
(inclusive) control periods (and the full budget for each subsequent
control period). Applying this approach to all 23 states with updated
budgets under this proposal (which sum to 312,824 allowances) would
mean that EPA would issue approximately 266,900 allowances across those
states in each of the 2017, 2018, and 2019 control periods. EGUs in
those states would be able to use allowances from the anticipated
210,000 allowance bank in addition to allowances issued for these years
in order to comply with the updated CSAPR emission requirements.
Allocating approximately 266,900 allowances for the first three years
of the updated requirements would, based on current estimates, result
in approximately 47,000 banked allowances used for compliance each
year. This would leave approximately 70,000 banked allowances, which is
roughly equivalent to the regional variability limit (i.e., the
difference between the states' collective emissions budgets and their
collective assurance levels). As under the illustrative four-for-one
surrender ratio option, the remaining amount of banked allowances that
would remain after using this initial reduced allocation is
approximately the amount of banked allowances that would allow all
states to emit up to their assurance levels for one year.
The EPA also seeks comment on what other percentages of the budget
and time-frames could be appropriately used to implement this
alternative approach. As in the specific example above, the EPA would
seek a combination of time and recordation percentage such that the
ultimate influence of the anticipated allowance bank is limited to
approximately the regional variability limit (i.e., the difference
between the collective emissions budgets and the collective assurance
levels).
Under either approach, the EPA would conduct unit-level allowance
allocations in the same manner as described above, such that each
unit's share of its state's total allowances issued is determined by
that allocation approach whether the EPA issues allowances in the full
amount of the state budget with a surrender ratio for banked allowances
or in a lesser amount to address the potential effect of the allowance
bank (as entertained in this alternative on which we are inviting
comment). In other words, the effect of this alternative approach would
be to reduce unit-level allowance allocations in those years in a
proportional manner (e.g., all unit-level allowance allocations would
decrease by the same percentage as the reduction in total allowances
issued below that state's budget).
Additionally, the EPA is soliciting comment on less and more
restrictive approaches to address use of the CSAPR EGU NOX
ozone allowance bank. Specifically, the EPA seeks comment on: (1)
Allowing banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX ozone allowances to
be used for compliance with the proposed budgets for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS starting in 2017 at a 1-to-1 ratio, or (2) completely disallowing
the use of banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NOX ozone allowances
for compliance with the proposed budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
starting in 2017. The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether and how
the assurance provision penalty might be increased, in conjunction with
any of the above approaches, to address the relationship of the
allowance bank to emissions occurring under this revised program from
2017 onward.
[[Page 75748]]
B. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Allowances From States
Addressing the 1997 Ozone NAAQS for Compliance in States Addressing the
2008 Ozone NAAQS
Consistent with the original CSAPR, EGUs covered by the seasonal
NOX budget trading program that will be incorporated into
these proposed FIPs are able to trade NOX ozone-season
emission allowances among units within the state and across state
boundaries, with emissions and the use of allowances limited by the
assurance provisions.
The EPA is considering how to transition allowance trading between
the group of states that are in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
program with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS but will not have updated
emissions budgets proposed in this action (e.g., Georgia based on this
proposal) and the group of states for which the EPA is proposing to
establish new or lower budgets to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this
action.
The EPA believes that, where appropriate and feasible, continuity
of programs is important, particularly for market-based and other power
sector regulations, as this sector makes long-term investment and
operational decisions. However, CSAPR allowances issued under budgets
established to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS using a $500 per ton cost
threshold in one state may not be appropriately valued to reduce
interstate ozone transport in another state for the 2008 NAAQS under
this proposal where budgets are being established using a $1,300 per
ton cost threshold. In the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA discussed
the concern that allowing unrestricted trading between groups of states
whose budgets were established using different cost thresholds would
impact whether the necessary emission reductions would be achieved
within each state.\106\ The assurance provisions used in CSAPR provide
some assurance that emission reductions will occur within each state,
but in the CSAPR rulemaking the EPA acknowledged concerns that the
assurance provisions alone may not be sufficient. Consistent with those
previously acknowledged concerns, the EPA is proposing in this
rulemaking not to allow these two groups of states to trade without
some additional assurances that the emission reductions will be
appropriately achieved within each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 76 FR at 48263-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, because of the relatively small size of the group of
states with budgets set using the $500 per ton cost threshold, the EPA
is not proposing to prohibit altogether trading between the two groups
in this instance. The EPA does not expect that a single state (i.e.,
Georgia) would drastically influence emission reductions in the other
23 states covered by this proposed rule. EPA is instead proposing to
permit trading between the two groups of ozone states subject to
certain restrictions on trading. In particular, the EPA is proposing to
require that sources in states addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS under
this proposal may use allowances issued in states only addressing the
1997 ozone NAAQS via the CSAPR trading programs (e.g., Georgia) at a
rate of 2.5 allowances for each ton of NOX emitted. The EPA
proposes a ratio of 2.5-to-1 in order to align with the ratio of the
cost of ozone season EGU NOX reduction promulgated in the
original CSAPR (i.e., $500 per ton) to the cost proposed for this
rulemaking (i.e., $1,300 per ton). The EPA proposes this restriction as
sufficient, in conjunction with the assurance provisions, to protect
the needed reductions in the 23 states addressing interstate transport
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA requests comments on this approach.
The EPA also seeks comment on using a different ratio than 2.5-to-1,
and on using the same ratio as the ratio for the use of banked
allowances, whether that ratio is 4-to-1 as proposed or a different
ratio.
The EPA is also seeking comment on allowing trading without
distinction between the particular NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008
ozone NAAQS) for which an upwind state has obligations to reduce
transported pollution, and subject only to the constraints of the CSAPR
assurance provisions with no additional restrictions. The EPA is
soliciting comment on whether and how the assurance provision penalty
might be increased in conjunction with this approach.
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking comment on separating compliance
between groups of upwind states under each NAAQS, whereby the use of
NOX ozone-season emission allowances from one group (e.g.,
sources in states only covered for the 1997 ozone NAAQS) would be
disallowed for compliance use by units in the other group (e.g.,
sources in states covered for the 2008 ozone NAAQS), similar to the
existing separation between the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 and CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 programs.
C. Use of CSAPR NOX Ozone-season Allowances Between States With
Different Control Stringencies Addressing the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
As discussed in Section VI of this proposal, the EPA notes that the
evaluation of EGU NOX requirements for the final rule could
show one or more states fully addressing their good neighbor obligation
based on ozone season NOX control requirements represented
by one cost level while one or more other states have ozone season
NOX control requirements based on a more stringent cost
level. In this situation, the EPA proposes that it would quantify
requirements for these different groups of states based on different
uniform control stringencies. However, CSAPR allowances issued under
budgets established using a one cost threshold (e.g., $1,300 per ton)
in one state may not be appropriately valued to reduce interstate ozone
transport in another state where budgets might be established using
different cost threshold (e.g., $3,400 per ton). Consistent with the
previous discussion (regarding allowances issued in states continuing
to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS under budgets established using $500
per ton threshold), the EPA is proposing to permit trading between
these groups of states subject to certain restrictions on trading. In
particular, the EPA is proposing to require that sources in states with
emissions budgets established using the more stringent cost thresholds
(e.g., $3,400 per ton) may use allowances issued in states with
emissions budgets established using the less stringent cost thresholds
(e.g., $1,300 per ton) at a rate of allowances for each ton of
NOX emitted based on the ratio of these cost thresholds. For
example, states with emissions budgets established using $3,400 per ton
could use allowances at a rate of approximately 2.5-to-1 in order to
align with the ratio of the relevant cost thresholds. The EPA requests
comments on allowing the states to trade with the proposed restrictions
on the use of allowances by sources in states controlled using the more
stringent cost threshold.
The EPA is also seeking comment on allowing trading without
distinction between the particular cost thresholds for which an upwind
state has obligations to reduce transported pollution, and subject only
to the constraints of the CSAPR assurance provisions with no additional
restrictions. The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether and how the
assurance provision penalty might be
[[Page 75749]]
increased in conjunction with this approach.
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking comment on separating compliance
between groups of upwind states under each cost threshold, whereby the
use of NOX ozone-season emission allowances from one group
(e.g., sources in states with allowances issued using the more
stringent cost threshold) would be disallowed for compliance use by
units in the other group, similar to the existing separation between
the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 and CSAPR SO2 Group 2
programs.
D. Summary of Proposed Allowance Surrender Ratios
As discussed in sections a. and b. above, the EPA proposes that in
this updated rulemaking, EGUs would be able to trade NOX
ozone-season emission allowances among units within the state and
across state boundaries, with emissions and use of allowances limited
by the assurance provisions. However, the EPA is proposing to impose
certain additional limits on the use of allowances starting in 2017 for
EGUs in the 23 states with updated budgets in this proposal. Table VII-
2 summarizes the limits on the proposed use for CSAPR NOX
ozone-season allowances.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ In the regulatory text revisions for this proposal, the
proposed limits discussed here are described in terms of the
``tonnage equivalent'' of an allowance. In the case of 2015 or 2016
vintage allowances used for compliance in a control period in 2017
or later, where 4 allowances would be needed for each ton of
emissions, each such allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of
0.25 tons per allowance (\1/4\ = 0.25). In the case of 2017 or later
allowances from a state with an original CSAPR budget used for
compliance by a unit in a state with an updated budget based on the
2008 ozone NAAQS, where 2.5 allowances would be needed for each ton
of emissions, each such allowance would have a tonnage equivalent of
0.40 tons per allowance (\1/2.5\ = 0.40). In a case where one
allowance is needed for each ton of emissions, such allowances would
have a tonnage equivalent of one ton per allowance. See proposed 40
CFR 97.524(f) in the regulatory text for this proposal.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE15.001
6. Compliance Deadlines
As discussed in sections II.A., III.B., and IV.A., the proposed
rule would require NOX reductions from sources starting May
1, 2017, to ensure that reductions are made as expeditiously as
practicable to assist downwind states' attainment and maintenance of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The compliance deadline is coordinated with the
attainment deadline for the relevant NAAQS and the proposed rule
includes provisions to assure that all necessary reductions occur at
sources within each individual state.
In section VI above, the EPA explains that this is an adequate and
reasonable time for sources to plan for compliance and operate
necessary controls.
For states for which EPA has already established a FIP requiring
their units to participate in the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program because of transport obligations under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, no CFR changes are necessary to accommodate this
[[Page 75750]]
compliance deadline. The EPA proposes to amend the regulatory text in
40 CFR 97.506(c)(3) to reflect the 2017 start of compliance obligations
for units in states that were not previously subject to the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program (e.g., Kansas). The EPA
also proposes to amend various FIP provisions in 40 CFR part 52 to
indicate the start and end of compliance obligations under the FIPs for
sources in states added to the trading program under this proposed rule
(e.g., Kansas) or removed from the trading program in response to the
D.C. Circuit's remand of certain NOX ozone-season emissions
budgets (e.g., Florida and South Carolina).
7. Monitoring and Reporting and the Allowance Management System
Monitoring and reporting in accordance with the provisions of 40
CFR part 75 are required for all units subject to the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading programs and would also be required
for all units covered under the proposed transport rule for the 2008
ozone NAAQS requirements. The EPA proposes that the monitoring
certification deadline by which monitors are installed and certified
for compliance use generally would be May 1, 2017, the beginning of the
first compliance period proposed in this rule, with potentially later
deadlines for units that commence commercial operation after July 1,
2016. Similarly, the EPA proposes that the first calendar quarter in
which quarterly emission reporting is required would generally be the
quarter including May 1, 2017. These deadlines are analogous to the
current deadlines under CSAPR but are delayed by two years to reflect
the fact that this rule's initial implementation year would be two
years later than the existing CSAPR programs' initial implementation
year.
Under part 75, a unit has several options for monitoring and
reporting, namely the use of a CEMS; an excepted monitoring methodology
based in part on fuel flow metering for certain gas- or oil-fired
peaking units; low-mass emissions monitoring for certain non-coal-
fired, low emitting units; or an alternative monitoring system approved
by the Administrator through a petition process. In addition, sources
can submit petitions to the Administrator for alternatives to specific
CSAPR and part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. Each CEMS must undergo rigorous initial certification
testing and periodic quality assurance testing thereafter, including
the use of relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) and 24-hour
calibrations. In addition, when a monitoring system is not operating
properly, standard substitute data procedures are applied and result in
a conservative estimate of emissions for the period involved.
Further, part 75 requires electronic submission of a quarterly
emissions report to the Administrator, and in a format prescribed by
the Administrator. The report would contain all of the data required
concerning ozone season NOX emissions.
Units currently subject to CSAPR NOX ozone-season or
CSAPR NOX annual trading program requirements monitor and
report NOX emissions in accordance with part 75, so most
sources would not have to make any changes to monitoring and reporting
practices. In fact, only units in Kansas currently subject to the CSAPR
NOX annual trading program but not the CSAPR NOX
ozone-season trading program would need to start newly reporting ozone
season NOX mass emissions. These emissions are already
measured under the annual program, so the change would be a minor
reporting modification. Units in the following states monitor and
report NOX emissions under the CSAPR NOX ozone-
season trading program and would continue to do so without change under
the CSAPR ozone update for the 2008 NAAQS: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
8. Recordation of Allowances
The EPA proposes to update the deadlines by which EPA would record
allowances for the CSAPR NOX ozone-season trading program
for the compliance periods in the years from 2017 through 2022. The
proposed new dates would amend the recordation deadlines in 40 CFR
97.521 as shown in the proposed regulatory text amendments at the end
of this proposal. The existing recordation provisions require EPA to
record either FIP-based (i.e., governed by part 97) or SIP-based
allocations for 2017 and 2018 by July 1, 2016. The EPA proposes to
delay this deadline to December 1, 2016. The extension would allow EPA
to finalize any changes to the state budgets for the 2017 compliance
period before recording 2017 allowances. This would prevent the need to
take back allowances that were recorded under existing budgets in cases
where state budgets are reduced. The extended deadline would still
allow allocations to be recorded five months prior to the start of the
2017 compliance period, giving affected units time to make compliance
plans. Compliance true-up for the 2017 ozone season occurs after
December 1, 2017, so affected sources would have more than a year from
the extended recordation deadline to ensure they hold enough allowances
for 2017 ozone season compliance. The EPA is taking comment on this new
deadline for 2017 and 2018 allowance allocation recordation. The EPA is
also taking comment on whether the provision to delay 2017 and 2018
allocation recordation should be finalized ahead of final action on
this full proposal if this proposal is not finalized before July 1,
2016.
The EPA is also proposing to extend the existing deadlines for
recording CSAPR NOX ozone-season allowances for the 2019 and
2020 compliance periods and for the 2021 and 2022 compliance periods
each by one year, to July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, respectively. The
purpose of these proposed deadline extensions is to provide time for
states to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace the FIPs proposed
in this rulemaking on schedules comparable to the schedules for the SIP
revision options that the states have under the current CSAPR
regulations. The EPA seeks comment on extending these recordation
deadlines as discussed.
C. Submitting a SIP
As noted earlier in this section VIII, states may replace the FIP
with a SIP at any time if approved by the EPA. ``Abbreviated'' and
``full'' SIP options continue to be available. An ``abbreviated SIP''
allows a state to submit a SIP that would modify allocation provisions
in the NOX budget trading program that is incorporated into
FIP to allow the state to substitute its own allocation provisions. A
second approach, referred to as a full SIP, allows a state to adopt a
trading program meeting certain requirements that would allow sources
in the state to continue to use the EPA-administered trading program
through an approved SIP, rather than a FIP. In addition, as under
CSAPR, EPA proposes to provide states with an opportunity to adopt
state-determined allowance allocations for existing units for the
second compliance period under this proposed rule--in this case, the
2018 compliance period--through streamlined SIP revisions. See 76 FR
48208 at 48326-48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional discussion on full
and abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR 52.38(b).
[[Page 75751]]
1. 2018 SIP Option
As under CSAPR, the EPA proposes to allow a state to submit a SIP
revision establishing allowance allocations for existing units for the
second year of the new requirements, 2018, to replace the FIP-based
allocations. The process would be the same as under the current rule
with deadlines shifted roughly 2 years--i.e., a state would submit a
letter to EPA by November 15, 2016 indicating its intent to submit a
complete SIP revision by April 1, 2017. The SIP would provide in an
EPA-prescribed format a list of existing units and their allocations
for the 2018 control period. If a state does not submit a letter of
intent to submit a SIP revision, FIP allocations would be recorded by
December 1, 2016. If a state submits a timely letter of intent but
fails to submit a SIP revision, FIP allocations would be recorded by
April 1, 2017. If a state submits a timely letter of intent followed by
a timely SIP revision that is approved, the approved SIP allocations
would be recorded by October 1, 2017.
2. 2019 and Beyond SIP Option
For the 2019 control period and later, EPA proposes that the SIP
submittal deadline be delayed one year, until December 1, 2017, from
the current deadline. The deadline to then submit state allocations for
2019 and 2020 would be June 1, 2018 and the deadline to record those
allocations would be July 1, 2018. Under the proposed new deadlines, a
state could submit a SIP revision for 2021 and beyond control periods
by December 1, 2018, with state allocations due June 1, 2019, and
allocation recordation by July 1, 2019. For 2019 control period and
later, SIPs can be full or abbreviated SIPs. An allocation methodology
approved in an abbreviated SIP submitted for 2017 under the existing
CSAPR regulations could also apply under the proposed new rule in 2017
and 2018. See section III of this preamble and 76 FR 48208 at 48326-
48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional discussion on full and
abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR 52.38(b).
3. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the CSAPR Trading Program
For a transport SIP revision that does not use the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program, EPA would evaluate the
transport SIP based on the particular control strategies selected and
whether the strategies as a whole provide adequate and enforceable
provisions ensuring that the emission reductions will be achieved. The
SIP revision at a minimum should include the following general
elements: (1) A comprehensive baseline 2017 statewide NOX
emission inventory (which includes growth and existing control
requirements), which should be consistent with the 2017 emission
inventory the EPA would use when finalizing this rulemaking to
calculate the required state budget; (2) a list and description of
control measures to satisfy the state emission reduction obligation and
a demonstration showing when each measure would be in place to meet the
2017 compliance date; (3) fully-adopted state rules providing for such
NOX controls during the ozone season; (4) for EGUs greater
than 25 MWe and large boilers and combustion turbines with a rated heat
input capacity of 250 mmBtu per hour or greater, Part 75 monitoring,
and for other units, monitoring and reporting procedures sufficient to
demonstrate that sources are complying with the SIP; and (5) a
projected inventory demonstrating that state measures along with
federal measures will achieve the necessary emission reductions in time
to meet the 2017 compliance deadline.\108\ The SIPs must meet the
requirements for public hearing, be adopted by the appropriate board or
authority, and establish by a practically enforceable regulation or
permit a schedule and date for each affected source or source category
to achieve compliance. Once the state has made a SIP submission, the
EPA will evaluate the submission(s) for completeness. The EPA's
criteria for determining completeness of a SIP submission are codified
at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The EPA notes that the SIP is not required to include
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on replacing a FIP with a SIP, see the
discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326, August 8, 2011).
The EPA requests comment on what types of additional information and
guidance would be helpful and stands ready to assist states in SIP
development.
4. Submitting a SIP To Participate in CSAPR for States Not Included in
This Proposal
The EPA believes that there could be circumstances where a state
that is not obligated to reduce NOX emissions in order to
eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance of ozone standards in another state (such as Florida
or South Carolina for purposes of this proposal) may wish to
participate in the NOX ozone-season trading program in order
to serve a different regulatory purpose. For example, the state may
have a pending request for redesignation of an area to attainment that
relies on participation in the trading program as part of the state's
demonstration that emissions will not exceed certain levels, or the
state may wish to rely on participation in the trading program for
purposes of a SIP revision to satisfy certain obligations under the
Regional Haze Rule. The EPA seeks comment on whether the EPA should
revise the CSAPR regulations to allow the EPA to approve a SIP revision
in which a state seeks to participate in the NOX ozone-
season trading program for a purpose other than addressing ozone
transport obligations.
Further, the EPA seeks comment on the conditions that should apply
to any such approval in order to ensure that the state's participation
is consistent with the trading program's ability to achieve the
program's objectives with respect to interstate transport of ozone
pollution. The EPA believes that the primary conditions for
consideration in this circumstance would be the level of the state
emissions budget and what, if any, limitations would be placed on the
use of allowances issued to the sources in that state by sources in
other states.
The EPA specifically seeks comment on whether a presumption of
approvability of such a SIP revision should arise, without limitations
on the use of corresponding allowances for compliance by sources within
that state or in other states, if the state would adopt as part of the
SIP revision a NOX ozone-season emissions budget no higher
than the emissions budgets that the EPA finalizes under this rule. For
example, based on this proposal, an emissions budget that reflects EGU
NOX mitigation strategies represented by a uniform cost of
$1,300 per ton. The EPA notes that such emissions budgets could be
developed using the data and analysis used to establish the emissions
budgets for this rule.
EPA also specifically seeks comment on whether a presumption of
approvability of such a SIP revision should arise, with limitations on
the use of allowances issued to the state's sources analogous to the
limitations proposed for allowances issued to Georgia's units in this
proposed rule, if the state would adopt as part of the SIP revision a
NOX ozone-season emissions budget no higher than the base
case ozone season NOX emissions that EPA projected for the
state in the analysis used to establish the emissions budgets for this
proposed rule.
The EPA also specifically seeks comment on whether, in the case of
a state previously subject to the CSAPR NOX ozone-season
trading program (e.g., Florida or South Carolina), a
[[Page 75752]]
presumption of approvability of such a SIP revision should arise at an
emissions level higher than the state's base case emissions in the
analysis used to establish the emissions budgets for this proposed
rule--for example, an emissions level equal to the state's previously
promulgated CSAPR budget--subject to the imposition of trading
limitations on allowances issued to the state's units analogous to the
limitations proposed for allowances issued to Georgia's units in this
proposal.
Finally, the EPA also seeks comment on whether a state whose
allowances would otherwise be subject to limitations on use analogous
to the limitations proposed for allowances issued to Georgia's units in
this proposed rule could avoid those limitations by adopting in a SIP
revision a more stringent budget reflecting emission levels at higher
dollar per ton emission reduction costs comparable to the dollar per
ton emission reduction costs used to establish the budgets for other
states in this proposed rule.
D. Title V Permitting
This proposed rule, like CSAPR, does not establish any permitting
requirements independent of those under title V of the CAA and the
regulations implementing title V, 40 CFR parts 70 and 71.\109\ All
major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are
required to apply for title V operating permits that include emission
limitations and other conditions as necessary to assure compliance with
the applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of
the applicable State Implementation Plan. CAA sections 502(a) and
504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a) and 7661c(a). The ``applicable
requirements'' that must be addressed in title V permits are defined in
the title V regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 (definition of
``applicable requirement'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Part 70 addresses requirements for state title V programs,
and part 71 governs the federal title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units subject to
this transport rule and given that many of the units covered here are
already subject to CSAPR, most of the sources at which the units are
located are already subject to title V permitting requirements. For
sources subject to title V, the interstate transport requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would be applicable to them under the final
FIPs will be ``applicable requirements'' under title V and therefore
will need to be addressed in the title V permits. For example,
requirements concerning designated representatives, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances
covering emissions, the assurance provisions, and liability will be
``applicable requirements'' to be addressed in the permits.
Title V of the CAA establishes the basic requirements for state
title V permitting programs, including, among other things, provisions
governing permit applications, permit content, and permit revisions
that address applicable requirements under final FIPs in a manner that
provides the flexibility necessary to implement market-based programs
such as the trading programs established by CSAPR and updated by this
proposed ozone interstate transport rule. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b).
In CSAPR, EPA established standard requirements governing how
sources covered by the rule would comply with title V and its
regulations.\110\ 40 CFR 97.506(d). Under this proposed rule, EPA
proposes that those same requirements would continue to apply to
sources already in the CSAPR NOX Ozone-season Trading
Program and to any newly covered sources that have been added to
address interstate transport of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For example, the
title V regulations provide that a permit issued under title V must
include ``[a] provision stating that no permit revision shall be
required under any approved . . . emissions trading and other similar
programs or processes for changes that are provided for in the
permit.'' 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8) and 71.6(a)(8). Consistent with these
provisions in the title V regulations, in CSAPR, EPA included a
provision stating that no permit revision is necessary for the
allocation, holding, deduction, or transfer of allowances. 40 CFR
97.506(d)(1). This provision is also included in each title V permit
for a covered source. The EPA proposes to maintain its approach under
CSAPR that allowances can be traded (or allocated, held, or deducted)
without a revision to the title V permit of any of the sources
involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ EPA also issued a guidance document and template that
includes instructions describing how to incorporate the CSAPR
applicable requirements into a source's title V permit. https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_Title_V_Permit_Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the EPA is also proposing to maintain that sources in
the CSAPR NOX Ozone-season Trading Program can continue to
use the title V minor modification procedure to change their approach
for monitoring and reporting emissions, in certain circumstances.
Specifically, sources may use the minor modification procedure so long
as the new monitoring and reporting approach is one of the prior-
approved approaches under CSAPR (i.e., approaches using a continuous
emission monitoring system, an excepted monitoring system under
appendices D and E to part 75, a low mass emissions excepted monitoring
methodology under 40 CFR 75.19, or an alternative monitoring system
under subpart E of part 75), and the permit already includes a
description of the new monitoring and reporting approach to be used.
See 40 CFR 97.506(d)(2); 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) and 40 CFR
71.7(e)(1)(i)(B). As described in our 2015 guidance, we suggest in our
template that sources may comply with this requirement by including a
table of all of the approved monitoring and reporting approaches under
the rule, and the applicable requirements governing each of those
approaches. Inclusion of the table in a source's title V permit
therefore allows a covered unit that seeks to change or add to their
chosen monitoring and recordkeeping approach to easily comply with the
regulations governing the use of the title V minor modification
procedure.
Under CSAPR, in order to employ a monitoring or reporting approach
different from the prior-approved approaches discussed above, unit
owners and operators must submit monitoring system certification
applications to the EPA establishing the monitoring and reporting
approach actually to be used by the unit, or, if the owners and
operators choose to employ an alternative monitoring system, to submit
petitions for that alternative to the EPA. These applications and
petitions are subject to EPA review and approval to ensure consistency
in monitoring and reporting among all trading program participants. The
EPA's responses to any petitions for alternative monitoring systems or
for alternatives to specific monitoring or reporting requirements are
posted on the EPA's Web site.\111\ EPA proposes to maintain the same
approach in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ https://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/part-75-petition-responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the EPA's approach under CSAPR, the applicable
requirements resulting from this proposed FIP would be incorporated
into covered sources' existing title V permits either pursuant to the
provisions for reopening for cause (40 CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f))
or the standard permit renewal provisions (40
[[Page 75753]]
CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)).\112\ For sources newly subject to title V
that will also be covered sources under the final FIPs, the initial
title V permit issued pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a) should address the
final FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ A permit is reopened for cause if any new applicable
requirements (such as those under a FIP) become applicable to a
covered source with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If
the remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such new applicable
requirements will be added to the permit during permit renewal. See
40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in CSAPR, the approach to title V permitting under the proposed
FIPs imposes no independent permitting requirements and should reduce
the burden on sources already required to be permitted under title V
and on permitting authorities.
E. Relationship to Other Emission Trading and Ozone Transport Programs
1. Interactions With Existing CSAPR \113\ Annual Programs, Title IV
Acid Rain Program, NOX SIP Call, Section 176A Petition, and
Other State Implementation Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ The CSAPR Annual Programs are referred to in regulations
as the Transport Rule NOX Annual Trading Program (40 CFR
97.401-97.435), the Transport Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading
Program (40 CFR 97.601-97.635) and the Transport Rule SO2
Group 2 Trading Program (40 CFR 97.701-97.735).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. CSAPR Annual Programs
Nothing in this proposal affects any CSAPR NOX annual or
CSAPR SO2 Group 1 or CSAPR SO2 Group 2
requirements. The CSAPR annual requirements were premised on the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that are not being addressed in this
rulemaking. The CSAPR NOX annual trading program and the
CSAPR SO2 Group 1 and Group 2 trading programs remain in
place and will continue to be administered by the EPA.
The EPA acknowledges that, in addition to the ozone budgets
discussed above, the D.C. Circuit has remanded for reconsideration the
CSAPR SO2 budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and
Texas. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138. This proposal does not
address the remand of these CSAPR phase 2 SO2 emissions
budgets. The EPA intends to address the remand of the phase 2
SO2 annual emissions budgets separately.
b. Title IV Interactions
This proposed rule if adopted would not affect any Acid Rain
Program requirements. Any Title IV sources that are subject to
provisions of this proposed rule would still need to continue to comply
with all Acid Rain provisions. Acid Rain Program SO2 and
NOX requirements are established independently in Title IV
of the Clean Air Act, and will continue to apply independently of this
proposed rule's provisions. Acid Rain sources will still be required to
comply with Title IV requirements, including the requirement to hold
Title IV allowances to cover SO2 emissions at the end of a
compliance year.
c. NOX SIP Call Interactions
States affected by both the NOX SIP Call and any final
CSAPR ozone update for the 2008 NAAQS will be required to comply with
the requirements of both rules. This proposed rule requires
NOX ozone season emission reductions from EGUs greater than
25 MW in nearly all NOX SIP Call states and at levels
greater than required by the NOX SIP Call. Therefore, this
proposed rule would satisfy the requirements of the NOX SIP
Call for these large EGU units.
The NOX SIP Call states used the NOX Budget
Trading Program to comply with the NOX SIP Call requirements
for EGUs serving a generator with a nameplate capacity greater than 25
MW and large non-EGUs with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater
than 250 MMBTU/hr. (In some states, EGUs smaller than 25 MW were also
part of the NBP as a carryover from the Ozone Transport Commission
NOX Budget Trading Program.) When the EPA promulgated CAIR,
it allowed states to modify that program and include all NOX
Budget Trading Program units in the CAIR NOX Ozone-season
Trading Program as a way to continue to meet the requirements of the
NOX SIP Call for these sources.
In CSAPR, however, the EPA allowed states to expand applicability
of the trading program to EGUs smaller than 25 MW but did not allow the
expansion of applicability to include large non-EGU sources. The reason
for excluding large non-EGU sources was largely that emissions from
these sources were generally much lower than the budget amount and
there was concern that surplus allowances created as a result of an
overestimation of baseline emissions and subsequent shutdowns (since
1999 when the NOX SIP Call was promulgated) would prevent
needed reductions by the EGUs to address significant contribution to
downwind air quality impacts.
Since then, states have had to find appropriate ways to continue to
show compliance with the NOX SIP Call, particularly for
large non-EGUs.\114\ Most states that included such sources in CAIR are
still working to find suitable solutions.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ CSAPR generally satisfies NOX SIP Call
requirements for EGUs in most affected states because the CSAPR cap
is lower than the EGU portion of the NOX SIP Call
emission levels.
\115\ Affected sources continue to report ozone season emissions
using part 75 as required by the NOX SIP Call and
emissions in most states cannot (or are not likely to) exceed
NOX SIP Call non-EGU budget levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the EPA is taking comment on whether to allow any
NOX SIP Call state affected by this proposed rule to
voluntarily submit a SIP revision at a budget level that is
environmentally neutral to address the state's NOX SIP Call
requirement for ozone season NOX reductions. The SIP
revision could include a rule to expand the applicability of the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program to include all
NOX Budget Trading Program units. Analysis shows that these
units (mainly large non-EGU boilers, combustion turbines, and combined
cycle units with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250
mmBtu/hr) continue to emit well below their portion of the
NOX SIP Call budget. In order to ensure that the necessary
amount of EGU emission reductions occur for this proposed rule, the
corresponding state ozone-season emissions budget amount could be
increased by the lesser of the highest ozone season NOX
emissions (in the last 3-5 years) \116\ from those units or the
relevant non-EGU budget under the NOX SIP Call, and this
small group of non-EGUs could participate in the CSAPR ozone-season
trading program. The environmental impact would be neutral using this
approach, and hourly reporting of emissions under part 75 would
continue. This approach would address requests by states for help in
determining an appropriate way to address the continuing NOX
SIP Call requirement as to non-EGU sources. EPA proposes that if this
option is finalized that the variability limits established for EGUs be
unchanged as a result of including these non-EGUs. The assurance
provisions would apply to EGUs, and emissions from non-EGUs would not
affect the assurance levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ EPA requests comment on the appropriate time period for
this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX SIP Call generally requires that states choosing
to rely on large EGUs and large non-EGUs for meeting NOX SIP
Call emission reduction requirements must establish a NOX
mass emissions cap on each source and require part 75, subpart H
monitoring. As an alternative to source-by-source NOX mass
emission caps, a state may impose NOX emission rate limits
on each source and use maximum operating capacity for estimating
NOX mass emissions or may rely on other requirements that
the state demonstrates to be equivalent to either the NOX
mass
[[Page 75754]]
emission caps or the NOX emission rate limits that assume
maximum operating capacity. Collectively, the caps or their
alternatives cannot exceed the portion of the state budget for those
sources. See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i)(4). If the EPA were to allow a
state to expand the applicability of this proposed rule to include all
the NOX Budget Trading Program units in the CSAPR
NOX ozone-season trading program, the cap requirement would
be met through the new budget and the monitoring requirement would be
met through the trading program provisions, which require part 75
monitoring. Whether this option is finalized or not, the EPA will work
with states to ensure that NOX SIP Call obligations continue
to be met. The EPA requests comment on the voluntary inclusion of
NOX SIP Call non-EGUs in this 2008 ozone-season proposed
rule.
d. CAA Section 176A Petition To Expand the OTR
On December 9, 2013, the EPA received a CAA section 176A petition
from the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The petition was
amended on December 12, 2013 to add the state of Pennsylvania as a
petitioning state. The petition requests that the EPA add 8 states and
the remainder of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the current Ozone
Transport Region that was established under CAA section 184.\117\ The
EPA will address this petition at a future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ The named 8 states are: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Currently, the portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the OTR is
in the consolidated metropolitan statistical area that includes the
District of Columbia and northern Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Other State Implementation Plans
In this proposal, the EPA has not conducted any technical analysis
to determine whether compliance with the proposed rule would satisfy
other requirements for EGUs in any attainment or nonattainment areas
(e.g., RACT or BART). For that reason, the EPA is not now making
determinations nor establishing any presumptions that compliance with
the proposed rule satisfies any other requirements for EGUs. Based on
analyses that states conduct on a case-by-case basis, states may be
able to conclude that compliance with the proposed rule for certain
EGUs fulfills other SIP requirements.
2. Other Federal Rulemakings
a. Clean Power Plan
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean
Power Plan--a historic and important action on emissions that
contribute to climate change. The CPP reduces carbon pollution from the
power sector. With strong but achievable standards for power plants,
and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution
(CO2) that is driving climate change, the Clean Power Plan
(CPP) provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing
field while reflecting each state's energy mix.
The Clean Air Act--under section 111(d)--creates a partnership
between EPA, states, tribes and U.S. territories--with EPA setting a
goal and states and tribes choosing how they will meet it. The CPP
follows that approach. The CPP establishes interim and final
CO2 emission performance rates and statewide goals. States
then develop and implement plans that ensure that the power plants in
their state--either individually, together or in combination with other
measures--achieve these rates or goals. States will be required to
submit a state plan, or an initial submittal with an extension request,
by September 6, 2016. Complete state plans must be submitted no later
than September 6, 2018. The interim rates and goals are assessed over
the years 2022 to 2029 and the final CO2 emission
performance rates, rate-based goals, or mass-based goals are assessed
for 2030 and after.
Because the final deadline for states to submit complete plans
under the CPP is September 2018 and because mandatory CPP reductions do
not begin until the interim period (i.e., starting in 2022), the EPA
does not anticipate significant interactions with the CPP and the near-
term (i.e., starting in 2017) ozone season EGU NOX emission
reduction requirements under this proposal.
However the EPA notes that actions taken to reduce CO2
emissions (e.g., deployment of zero-emitting generation) may also
reduce ozone season NOX emissions. To the extent that states
or electric utilities consider emission reduction strategies to meet
these two separate requirements--CPP and interstate ozone transport--in
a coordinated manner, they may find efficiency gains in that actions to
meet the CPP goals may also help meet interstate ozone transport
requirements.
The EPA believes that timing flexibility provided in the CPP offers
significant benefits that allow states to develop plans that will help
achieve a number of goals, including, but not limited to: Reducing
cost, addressing reliability concerns, addressing concerns about
stranded assets, and facilitating the integration of meeting the
emission guidelines and compliance by affected EGUs with other air
quality and pollution control obligations on the part of both states
and affected EGUs.
The EPA is also cognizant of the potential influence of addressing
interstate ozone transport on the CPP. As states and utilities
undertake the near- and longer-term planning that will be needed for
the CPP, they will have the opportunity to consider how compliance with
this proposed rule can anticipate, or be consistent with, expected
compliance strategies for the CPP. While some EGU NOX
mitigation strategies, most notably shifting generation from higher-
NOX emitting coal-fired units to lower NOX
emitting NGCC units, can potentially also reduce CO2
emissions, the EGU emissions analysis performed for this interstate
transport action does not results in a notable difference in
CO2 emissions. However, EPA's results do not preclude states
and utilities from considering these programs together. And, as the EPA
has structured the interstate transport obligations that would be
established by this proposal as requirements to limit aggregate
affected EGU emissions and the EPA is not proposing to enforce source-
specific emission reduction requirements, EGU owners have the
flexibility to plan for compliance with the interstate ozone transport
requirements in ways that are consistent with state and EGU strategies
to reduce CO2 emissions for the Clean Power Plan.
With respect to concerns about potentially stranded investments
\118\ in NOX control equipment, the EPA's budget-setting
approach quantifies NOX reductions from upgrading combustion
controls at coal-fired units. However, CSAPR's flexible compliance does
not require that specific NOX controls be installed at any
specific facilities, and we would not expect such controls to be
installed on units that may not be economic to operate in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ A potential stranded investment is an investment in an EGU
NOX reduction strategy (e.g., combustion controls) for
which the affected EGU retires before the investment is fully
depreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. 2015 Ozone Standard
On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone
NAAQS to 70 ppb, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's
effects on public health and welfare. This proposed rule to update
CSAPR to address interstate emissions transport
[[Page 75755]]
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is a separate and distinct
regulatory action and is not meant to address the CAA's good neighbor
provision with respect to the strengthened 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is mindful of the need to address ozone transport for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. The statutory deadline for the EPA to finalize area
designations is October 1, 2017. Further, good neighbor SIPs from
states are due on October 1, 2018. The steps taken under this proposal
to reduce interstate ozone transport, when finalized, will help states
attain and maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, to facilitate the
implementation of the CAA good neighbor provision the EPA intends to
provide information regarding steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework in
the fall of 2016. In particular, the EPA expects to conduct modeling
necessary to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors
and identify the upwind states that contribute significantly to these
receptors.
VIII. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, and impacts of compliance
with the proposed EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets
that reflect uniform NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see
proposed emissions budgets in table VI.1). In addition, the EPA also
assessed compliance with other more and less stringent alternative EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets, reflecting uniform
NOX costs of $3,400 per ton and $500 per ton, respectively
(see alternative emissions budgets in tables VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA
evaluated the impact of implementing these emissions budgets to reduce
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More details for
this assessment can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
docket for this proposed rule.
The EPA notes that its analysis of the regulatory control scenarios
(i.e., the proposal and more and less stringent alternatives) is
illustrative in nature, in part because the EPA proposes to implement
the proposed EGU NOX emissions budgets via a regional
NOX ozone-season allowance trading program. This
implementation approach provides utilities with the flexibility to
determine their own compliance path. The EPA's assessment develops and
analyzes one possible scenario for implementing the NOX
budgets proposed by this action and one possible scenario for
implementing the more and less stringent alternatives.
Table VIII.1 provides the projected 2017 EGU emissions reductions
for the evaluated regulatory control scenarios.
Table VIII.1--Projected 2017 Emissions Reductions of NOX, SO2, and CO2 With the Proposed NoX Emissions Budgets
and More or Less Stringent Alternatives
[TONS] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More stringent Less stringent
Proposal alternative alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (annual).................................................... 89,969 92,582 23,686
NOX (ozone season).............................................. 84,856 83,680 25,051
SO2 (annual).................................................... 383 425 301
CO2 (annual).................................................... 610,092 614,385 719,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOX and SO2 emissions are reported in English (short) tons; CO2 is reported in metric tons.
The EPA estimates the costs associated with compliance with the
illustrative proposed regulatory control alternative to be
approximately $93 million annually. These costs represent the private
compliance cost of reducing NOX emissions to comply with the
proposal and include monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
Table VIII.2 provides the estimated costs for the evaluated regulatory
control scenarios, including the proposal and more and less stringent
alternatives. Estimates are in 2011 dollars.
Table VIII.2--Cost Estimates for Compliance With the Proposed NOX Emissions Budgets and More and Less Stringent
Alternatives
[2011]$ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More stringent Less stringent
Proposal alternative alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs........................................................... $93 $96 $4.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levelized annualized costs over the period 2016 through 2040, discounted using the 4.77 discount rate used
in IPM's objective function of minimizing the net present value of the stream of total costs of electricity
generation.
In this analysis, the EPA monetized the estimated benefits
associated with reducing population exposure to ozone and
PM2.5 and co-benefits of decreased emissions of
CO2, but was unable to monetize the co-benefits associated
with reducing exposure to mercury, carbon monoxide, and NO2,
as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In addition,
the EPA expects positive health and welfare impacts associated with
reduced levels of hydrogen chloride, but could not quantify these
impacts. Among the benefits it could quantify, the EPA estimated
combinations of health benefits at discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent (as recommended by the EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses [U.S. EPA, 2014] and OMB's Circular A-4 [OMB, 2003]) and
climate co-benefits at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5
percent, and 3 percent (95th percentile) (as recommended by the
interagency working group). The EPA estimates the monetized ozone-
related benefits \119\ of the proposal to be $490 million to $790
million (2011$) in 2017 and the
[[Page 75756]]
PM2.5-related co-benefits \120\ of the proposal to be $190
million to $430 million (2011$) using a 3% discount rate and $170
million to $380 million (2011$) using a 7% discount rate. Further, the
EPA estimates CO2-related co-benefits of $6.5 to $66 million
(2011$). Additional details on this analysis are provided in the RIA
for this proposal. Tables VIII.3 and VIII.5 summarize the quantified
monetized human health and climate benefits of the proposal and the
more and less stringent control alternatives. Table VIII.4 summarizes
the estimated avoided ozone- and PM2.5-related health
incidences for the proposal and the more and less stringent control
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The ozone-related health benefits range is based on
applying different adult mortality functions (i.e., Smith et al.
(2009) and Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
\120\ The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is
based on applying different adult mortality functions (i.e., Krewski
et al. (2009) and Lepeule et al. (2012)).
Table VIII.3--Estimated Health Benefits of Projected 2017 Emissions Reductions for the Proposal and More or Less
Stringent Alternatives
[Millions of 2011]$ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More stringent Less stringent
Proposal alternative alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (as ozone)............................................ $490 to $790 $500 to $820 $140 to $220
NOX (as PM2.5):
3% Discount Rate...................................... 190 to 430 190 to 440 49 to 110
7% Discount Rate...................................... 170 to 380 170 to 390 45 to 100
Total:
3% Discount Rate...................................... 670 to 1,200 690 to 1,300 190 to 340
7% Discount Rate...................................... 650 to 1,200 670 to 1,200 180 to 330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith
et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
Table VIII.4--Summary of Estimated Avoided Ozone-Related and PM2.5-Related Health Incidences From Projected 2017
Emissions Reductions for the Proposal and More or Less Stringent Alternatives\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More stringent Less stringent
Proposal alternative alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone-Related Health Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided Premature Mortality:
Smith et al. (2009) (all ages).............................. 48 50 14
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) (all ages).................... 81 83 23
Avoided Morbidity:
Hospital admissions--respiratory causes (ages > 65)......... 79 81 22
Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)................. 320 330 90
Asthma exacerbation (ages 6-18)............................. 93,000 95,000 26,000
Minor restricted-activity days (ages 18-65)................. 240,000 240,000 67,000
School loss days (ages 5-17)................................ 77,000 79,000 22,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5-Rrelated Health Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided Premature Mortality:
Krewski et al. (2009) (adult)............................... 21 22 6
Lepeule et al. (2012) (adult)............................... 48 50 13
Woodruff et al. (1997) (infant)............................. <1 <1 <1
Avoided Morbidity:
Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages)........... 12 12 3
Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)................................. 31 32 8
Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)....................... 390 400 100
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9-11)............ 560 570 150
Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65).................. 16,000 16,000 4,200
Lost work days (age 18-65).................................. 2,700 2,700 700
Asthma exacerbation (age 6-18).............................. 580 600 150
Hospital admissions--respiratory (all ages)................. 6 7 2
Hospital admissions--cardiovascular (age > 18).............. 8 8 2
Non-Fatal Heart Attacks (age 18)................. .............. .............. ..............
Peters et al. (2001)........................................ 25 26 7
-----------------------------------------------
Pooled estimate of 4 studies............................ 3 3 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are rounded to whole numbers with two significant figures.
[[Page 75757]]
Table VIII.5--Estimated Global Climate Co-Benefits of CO2 Reductions for the Proposal and More or Less Stringent
Alternatives
[Millions of 2011$] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More stringent Less stringent
Discount rate and statistic Proposal alternative alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (average).................................................... $6.5 $6.5 $7.6
3 (average)..................................................... 23 23 27
2.5 (average)................................................... 35 35 41
3 (95th percentile)............................................. 66 66 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values
represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.
The EPA combined this information to perform a benefit-cost
analysis for this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and for the more and
less stringent alternatives--shown in the RIA in the docket for this
proposed rule).
Table VIII.6--Total Costs, Total Monetized Benefits, and Net Benefits of
the Proposal in 2017 for U.S.
[Millions of 2011$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Co-Benefits.................... $23.
Air Quality Health..................... 670 to 1200.
Total Benefits......................... 700 to 1200.
Annualized............................. 93.
Net Benefits........................... 600 to 1100.
Non-Monetized.......................... Non-monetized climate benefits.
Reductions in exposure to
ambient NO2 and SO2.
Reductions in mercury
deposition.
Ecosystem benefits assoc. with
reductions in Visibility
impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our estimates
of the co-benefits from reducing CO2 emissions do not
include important impacts like ocean acidification or potential tipping
points in natural or managed ecosystems. Unquantified benefits also
include climate co-benefits from reducing emissions of non-
CO2 GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) and co-benefits
from reducing direct exposure to SO2, NOX, and
hazardous air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as from reducing
ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Based upon the foregoing
discussion, it remains clear that the benefits of this proposed action
are substantial, and far exceed the costs. Additional details on
benefits, costs, and net benefits estimates are provided in the RIA for
this proposal.
For this proposed rule, the EPA analyzed the costs to the electric
power sector using IPM. The IPM is a dynamic linear programming model
that can be used to examine the economic impacts of air pollution
control policies for SO2 and NOX throughout the
contiguous United States for the entire power system. Documentation for
IPM can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or at www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.
The EPA provides a qualitative assessment of economic impacts
associated with electricity price changes to consumers that may result
from this proposed rule. This assessment can be found in the RIA for
this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the
effect of regulations on job creation and employment. According to the
Executive Order, ``our regulatory system must protect public health,
welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the
best available science'' (Executive Order 13563, 2011). Although
standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically included a separate
analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts, employment impacts
are of particular concern and questions may arise about their existence
and magnitude.
States have the responsibility and flexibility to implement
policies and practices as part of developing SIPs for compliance with
the emissions budgets found in this proposed rule. Given the wide range
of approaches that may be used and industries that could be affected,
quantifying the associated employment impacts is difficult.
IX. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Regulatory Text for the CSAPR
FIPs and CSAPR Trading Programs
This section describes proposed amendments to the regulatory text
in the CFR for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season
Trading Program related to the findings and remedy discussed throughout
this preamble. This section also describes other minor proposed
corrections to the existing CFR text for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR
trading programs more generally.
The proposed regulatory text amendments related to the CSAPR FIPs
and the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program would be made
in parts 52, 78, and 97 of title 40 of the CFR. Proposed changes to
update the list of states that would be subject to FIPs to address
obligations related to transported ozone pollution are in Sec. Sec.
52.38(b)(2) (summarizing all states subject to FIPs), 52.540 (ending
FIP for Florida), 52.882 (establishing FIP for Kansas), and 52.2140
(ending FIP for South Carolina). Section 97.510 contains the proposed
changes establishing or revising the amounts of NOX Ozone-
Season trading budgets, new unit set-asides (NUSAs), Indian country
NUSAs, and variability limits for states whose sources participate in
the CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program. Additional
proposed changes to accommodate trading program participation by
sources whose coverage
[[Page 75758]]
starts in different years are in Sec. Sec. 97.506(c)(3) (compliance
deadlines), 97.512 (NUSA allowance allocation procedures), 97.530(b)
(monitor certification deadlines), and 97.534(d) (reporting deadlines).
Proposed changes to Sec. 52.38(b)(3) through (5) would update
states' options to submit SIP revisions which, upon approval by the
EPA, would modify certain CSAPR trading program provisions as applied
to those states or replace the states' FIPs with SIPs--options that
correspond closely to states' SIP revision options under CSAPR as
initially promulgated. Proposed changes in Sec. 97.521 (allowance
recordation) delay the deadlines for recording CSAPR NOX
Ozone-Season allowances for the control periods in 2018 through 2022 in
order to coordinate with the proposed updated submission deadlines for
the optional SIP revisions. A similar proposed delay in the deadline
for recording allowances for the control period in 2017 would provide
time to finalize this rulemaking and would thereby allow the EPA to
record allocations of 2017 allowances based on the final revised
budgets instead of recording allocations based on existing budgets that
are proposed to be superseded.
The proposed limitations on the use of emission allowances issued
for a compliance period before 2017 or from the state NOX
Ozone-Season trading budget for Georgia are implemented by redefining
sources' obligations under the trading program in terms of ``tonnage
equivalents'' of allowances rather than in terms of nominal quantities
of allowances. Section 97.502 contains a proposed new definition of
``tonnage equivalent'' and related proposed modifications to the
definitions of ``CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season allowance'' and
``CSAPR NOX Ozone-Season emissions limitation.'' A new Sec.
97.524(f) sets out the proposed procedures for determining the tonnage
equivalent of an allowance. Additional proposed changes to reflect the
use of allowances based on their tonnage equivalents (rather than their
nominal numbers) to meet various obligations are contained in
Sec. Sec. 97.506(c) (standard requirements relating to NOX
emissions), 97.511(c) (corrections of incorrect allowance allocations),
97.524 (compliance with emissions limitations and excess emissions
provisions), and 97.525 (compliance with assurance provisions). A
proposed change to Sec. 78.1 would make EPA's determinations of the
tonnage equivalents of particular allowance holdings subject to the
administrative appeal procedures set forth in part 78.
In addition to the proposed CFR changes described above, this
proposal also includes other minor amendments throughout the sections
of parts 52, 78, and 97 implementing CSAPR, including sections
implementing CSAPR's other three emissions trading programs. The most
common category of these minor changes consists of proposed corrections
to cross-references. Some cross-references would change as a result of
this proposal and corrections of those cross-references are therefore
related to the changes described above, while other cross-references as
originally published indicated incorrect locations because of
typographical errors or indicated correct locations but did not use the
correct CFR format. In virtually all cases, the intended correct cross-
reference can be determined from context, but the corrections clarify
the regulations.
Besides the proposed corrections to cross-references, most of the
remaining proposed corrections address other typographical errors.
However, a small number of the proposed CFR changes correct errors that
are not cross-references or obviously typographical errors. While the
EPA views all of these proposed corrections as noncontroversial, a few
merit a short explanation.
First, the phrase ``with regard to the State'' or ``the State and''
would be added in a number of locations in Sec. Sec. 52.38 and 52.39
where it was inadvertently omitted. The added phrase clarifies that
when the EPA approves a state's SIP revision as modifying or replacing
provisions in a CSAPR trading program, the modification or replacement
is effective only with regard to that particular state. Correcting the
omissions of these phrases would make the language concerning SIP
revisions consistent for all the types of SIP revisions under all the
CSAPR trading programs.
Second, the phrase ``in part'' would be removed from the existing
FIP language in various sections of part 52 for certain states with
Indian country to clarify that in order to replace a CSAPR FIP
affecting the sources in these states, a SIP revision must fully, not
``in part,'' correct the SIP deficiency identified by the EPA as the
basis for the FIP. The intended purpose of the words ``in part''--
specifically, to indicate that approval of a state's SIP revision would
not relieve any sources in Indian country within the borders of the
state from obligations under the FIP--is already served by other
language in those FIPs. The proposed corrections would make the
language in these CSAPR FIPs consistent with the FIP language for the
remaining CSAPR FIPs that address states with Indian country. Analogous
proposed changes to the general CSAPR FIP language in Sec. Sec.
52.38(a)(5) and (6) and (b)(5) and (6) and 52.39(f), (i), and (j) would
remove the phrase ``in whole or in part'' (referencing states without
Indian country and states with Indian country, respectively) while
adding language distinguishing the effect that the EPA's approval of a
SIP revision would have on sources in the state from the lack of effect
on any sources in Indian country within the borders of the state.
Third, language would be added to Sec. 78.1 clarifying that
determinations by the EPA Administrator under the CSAPR trading
programs that are subject to the part 78 administrative appeal
procedures are subject to those procedures whether the source in
question participates in a CSAPR trading program under a FIP or under
an approved SIP revision. This approach is consistent with the approach
taken under CAIR FIPs and SIPs and with the EPA's intent in CSAPR, as
evidenced by the lack of any proposal or discussion in the CSAPR
rulemaking regarding deviation from the historical approach. This
approach is also consistent with provisions in Sec. Sec. 52.38 and
52.39 prohibiting approvable SIP revisions from altering certain
provisions of the CSAPR trading programs, including the provisions
specifying that administrative appeal procedures for determinations of
the EPA Administrator under the trading programs are set forth in part
78.
Fourth, the phrase ``steam turbine generator'' would be changed to
``generator'' in the list of required equipment in the definition of a
``cogeneration system'' in Sec. Sec. 97.402, 97.502, 97.602, and
97.702. Absent this correction, a combustion turbine in a facility that
uses the combustion turbine in combination with an electricity
generator and heat recovery steam generator, but no steam turbine, to
produce electricity and useful thermal energy would not meet the
definition of a ``cogeneration unit.'' The proposed correction would
clarify that a combustion turbine in such a facility should be able to
qualify as a ``cogeneration unit'' (assuming it meets other relevant
criteria) under the CSAPR trading programs, as it could under the CAIR
trading programs. The consistency of this approach with the EPA's
intent in the CSAPR rulemaking is evidenced by the lack of any proposal
or discussion in that rulemaking regarding the concept of narrowing the
set of
[[Page 75759]]
facilities qualifying for an applicability exemption as cogeneration
units. To the contrary, as discussed in the preamble to the CSAPR
proposal (75 FR 45307, August 2, 2010), the definition of
``cogeneration system'' was created in CSAPR to potentially broaden the
set of facilities qualifying for the exemption, specifically by
facilitating qualification as ``cogeneration units'' for certain units
that might not meet the required levels of efficiency on an individual
basis but that operate as components of multi-unit ``cogeneration
systems'' that do meet the required levels of efficiency.
Fifth, the deadline for recording certain allowance allocations
under Sec. Sec. 97.421(j), 97.521(j), 97.621(j), and 97.721(j) would
be changed from the ``date on which'' the EPA receives the necessary
allocation information to the date ``15 days after the date on which''
the EPA receives the information. The EPA's lack of intention in the
CSAPR rulemaking to establish the deadline as defined prior to the
correction is evidenced by the impracticability of complying with such
a deadline.
Sixth, a proposed change to a description of a required notice
under the assurance provisions in Sec. Sec. 97.425(b)(2)(iii)(B),
97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.625(b)(2)(iii)(B), and 97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B)
would modify the phrase ``any adjustments'' to the phrase
``calculations incorporating any adjustments'' in order to clarify that
the required notice will identify not only any adjustments made to
previously noticed calculations, but also the complete calculations
with (or without) such adjustments. The intended meaning is clear from
the subsequent provisions that use this notice as the point of
reference for the complete calculations used in the succeeding
administrative procedures.
Finally, the EPA notes that the proposed amendments include
updating the nomenclature in the CFR from its name as initially
proposed--``Transport Rule'' or ``TR''--to its name as finalized--
``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' or ``CSAPR.'' This update is
intended to reduce confusion and simplify communications regarding the
regulations by allowing a single name to be used in all contexts.
The EPA invites comment on the proposed regulatory text amendments
described above and shown at the end of this notice.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is
contained in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' [EPA-452/R-
15-009], is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in
section VIII of this preamble.
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the EPA estimated
the costs and benefits for three regulatory control alternatives: The
proposed EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets and more and
less stringent alternatives. This proposed action would reduce ozone
season NOX emissions from EGUs in 23 eastern states. Actions
taken to comply with the proposed EGU NOX ozone-season
emissions budgets would also reduce emissions of other criteria air
pollution and hazardous air pollution emissions, including annual
NOX, and CO2. The benefits associated with these
co-pollutant reductions are referred to as co-benefits, as these
reductions are not the primary objective of this proposed rule.
The RIA for this proposal analyzed illustrative compliance
approaches for implementing the proposed FIPs. This proposal would
establish EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets for 23
states and implement these budgets via the existing CSAPR
NOX ozone-season allowance trading program.
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, and impacts of implementing
the proposed EGU NOX ozone-season emissions budgets that
reflect uniform NOX costs of $1,300 per ton (see proposed
emissions budgets in table VI.1). In addition, the EPA also assessed
implementation of other more and less stringent alternative EGU
NOX ozone-season emissions budgets, reflecting uniform
NOX costs of $3,400 per ton and $500 per ton, respectively
(see alternative emissions budgets in tables VI.2 and VI.3). The EPA
evaluated the impact of implementing these emissions budgets to reduce
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. More details for
this assessment can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the
docket for this proposed rule.
The EPA notes that its analysis of the regulatory control scenarios
(i.e., the proposal and more and less stringent alternatives) is
illustrative in nature, in part because the EPA proposes to implement
the proposed EGU NOX emissions budgets via a regional
NOX ozone-season allowance trading program. This
implementation approach provides utilities with the flexibility to
determine their own compliance path. The EPA's assessment develops and
analyzes one possible scenario for implementing the NOX
budgets proposed by this action and one possible scenario for
implementing the more and less stringent alternatives.
The EPA estimates the costs associated with compliance with the
illustrative proposed regulatory control alternative to be
approximately $93 million (2011$) annually. These costs represent the
private compliance cost of reducing NOX emissions to comply
with the proposal.
In this analysis, the EPA monetized the estimated benefits
associated with the reduced exposure to ozone and PM2.5 and
co-benefits of decreased emissions of CO2, but was unable to
monetize the co-benefits associated with reducing exposure to mercury,
carbon monoxide, and NO2, as well as ecosystem effects and
visibility impairment. In addition, there are expected to be
unquantified health and welfare impacts associated with changes in
hydrogen chloride. Specifically, the EPA estimated combinations of
health benefits at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent (as
recommended by the EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses
[U.S. EPA, 2014] and OMB's Circular A-4 [OMB, 2003]) and climate co-
benefits at discount rates of 5 percent, 3 percent, 2.5 percent, and 3
percent (95th percentile) (as recommended by the interagency working
group). The EPA estimates the monetized ozone-related benefits \121\ of
the proposal to be $490 million to $790 million (2011$) in 2017 and the
PM2.5-related co-benefits \122\ of the proposal to be $190
million to $430 million (2011$) using a 3% discount rate and $170
million to $380 million (2011$) using a 7% discount rate. Further, the
EPA estimates CO2-related co-benefits of $6.5 to $66 million
(2011$). Additional details on this analysis are provided in the RIA
for this proposal. Tables X.A-
[[Page 75760]]
1, X.A-2, and X.A-3 summarize the quantified human health and climate
benefits and the costs of the proposal and the more and less stringent
control alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The ozone-related health benefits range is based on
applying different adult mortality functions (i.e., Smith et al.
(2009) and Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
\122\ The PM2.5-related health co-benefits range is
based on applying different adult mortality functions (i.e., Krewski
et al. (2009) and Lepeule et al. (2012)).
Table X.A-1--Estimated Health Benefits of Projected 2017 Emissions Reductions for the Proposal and More or Less
Stringent Alternatives
[Millions of 2011$] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal More stringent Less stringent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (as ozone).................... $490 to $790............ $500 to $820............ $140 to $220
NOX (as PM2.5)
3% Discount Rate.............. $190 to $430............ $190 to $440............ $49 to $110.
7% Discount Rate.............. $170 to $380............ $170 to $390............ $45 to $100.
Total
3% Discount Rate.............. $670 to $1,200.......... $690 to $1,300.......... $190 to $340.
7% Discount Rate.............. $650 to $1,200.......... $670 to $1,200.......... $180 to $330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The health benefits range is based on adult mortality functions (e.g., from Krewski et al. (2009) with Smith
et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012) with Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008)).
Table X.A-2--Estimated Global Climate Co-Benefits of CO2 Reductions for the Proposal and More or Less Stringent
Alternatives
[Millions of 2011$] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic Proposal More stringent Less stringent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (average)................................................. $6.5 $6.5 $7.6
3% (average)................................................. 23 23 27
2.5% (average)............................................... 35 35 41
3% (95th percentile)......................................... 66 66 78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values
represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.
The EPA combined this information to perform a benefit-cost
analysis for this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and for the more and
less stringent alternatives--shown in the RIA in the docket for this
proposed rule).
Table X.A-3--Total Costs, Total Monetized Benefits, and Net Benefits of
the Proposal in 2017 for U.S.
[Millions of 2011$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Co-Benefits.................... $23.
Air Quality Health Benefits............ $670 to $1200.
Total Benefits......................... $700 to $1200.
Annualized Costs....................... $93.
Compliance Costs....................... $10.
Net Benefits........................... $600 to $1100.
Non-Monetized Benefits................. Non-monetized climate benefits.
Reductions in exposure to
ambient NO2 and SO2.
Reductions in mercury
deposition.
Ecosystem benefits assoc. with
reductions in emissions of
NOX, SO2, and PM.
Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not
monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our estimates
of the co-benefits from reducing CO2 emissions do not
include important impacts like ocean acidification or potential tipping
points in natural or managed ecosystems. Unquantified benefits also
include climate co-benefits from reducing emissions of non-
CO2 GHGs (e.g., nitrous oxide and methane) and co-benefits
from reducing direct exposure to SO2, NOX, and
hazardous air pollution (e.g., mercury), as well as from reducing
ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. Based upon the foregoing
discussion, it remains clear that the benefits of this proposed action
are substantial, and far exceed the costs. Additional details on
benefits, costs, and net benefits estimates are provided in the RIA for
this proposal.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared
has been assigned EPA ICR number 2391.04. You can find a copy of the
ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and it is briefly summarized
here.
The information generated by information collection activities
under CSAPR is used by the EPA to ensure that affected facilities
comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and
reports are necessary to enable EPA or states to identify affected
facilities that may not be in compliance
[[Page 75761]]
with the requirements. The recordkeeping requirements require only the
specific information needed to determine compliance. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are established pursuant to
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and (c) and 301(a) (42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)
and (c) and 7601(a)) and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114
(42 U.S.C. 7414). Reported data may also be used for other regulatory
and programmatic purposes. All information submitted to the EPA for
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according
to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of
Business Information.
All of the EGUs that would be subject to changed information
collection requirements under this proposed rule are already subject to
information collection requirements under CSAPR. Most of these EGUs
also are already subject to information collection requirements under
the Acid Rain Program (ARP) established under Title IV of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. Both CSAPR and the ARP have existing approved
ICRs: EPA ICR Number 2391.03/OMB Control Number 2060-0667 (CSAPR) and
EPA ICR Number 1633.16/OMB Control Number 2060-0258 (ARP). The burden
and costs of the information collection requirements covered under the
CSAPR ICR are estimated as incremental to the information collection
requirements covered under the ARP ICR. Most of the information used to
estimate burden and costs in this ICR was developed for the existing
CSAPR and ARP ICRs.
This proposed rule would change the universe of sources subject to
certain information collection requirements under CSAPR but would not
change the substance of any CSAPR information collection requirements.
The burden and costs associated with the proposed changes in the
reporting universe are estimated as reductions from the burden and
costs under the existing CSAPR ICR. (This proposed rule would not
change any source's information collection requirements with respect to
the ARP.) The EPA intends to incorporate the burden and costs
associated with the proposed changes in the reporting universe under
this rulemaking into the next renewal of the CSAPR ICR.
Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this proposed action are EGUs in the states of Florida, Kansas, and
South Carolina that meet the applicability criteria for the CSAPR
NOX Ozone-Season Trading Program in 40 CFR 97.404.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (sections 110(a) and
301(a) of the Clean Air Act).
Estimated number of respondents: 116 sources in Florida, Kansas,
and South Carolina with one or more EGUs.
Frequency of response: Quarterly, occasionally.
Total estimated burden: Reduction of 14,064 hours (per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: Reduction of $1,472,047 (per year), includes
reduction of $450,951 operation and maintenance costs.
The burden and cost estimates above reflect the reduction in burden
and cost for Florida sources with EGUs that would no longer be required
to report NOX mass emissions and heat input data for the
ozone season to the EPA under the proposed rule and that are not
subject to similar information collection requirements under the Acid
Rain Program. Because these EGUs would no longer need to collect
NOX emissions or heat input data under 40 CFR part 75, the
estimates above also reflect the reduction in burden and cost to
collect and quality assure these data and to maintain the associated
monitoring equipment.
The EPA estimates that the proposed rule would cause no change in
information collection burden or cost for EGUs in Kansas that would be
required to report NOX mass emissions and heat input data
for the ozone season to the EPA or for EGUs in South Carolina that
would no longer be required to report NOX emissions and heat
input data for the ozone season to the EPA. The EGUs in both Kansas and
South Carolina already are and would remain subject to requirements to
report NOX mass emissions and heat input data for the entire
year to the EPA under the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program,
and the requirements related to ozone season reporting are a subset of
the requirements related to annual reporting. Similarly, the EPA
estimates that the proposed rule would cause no change in information
collection burden or cost for EGUs in Florida that are subject to the
Acid Rain Program because of the close similarity between the
information collection requirements under CSAPR and under the Acid Rain
Program.
More information on the ICR analysis is included in the docket for
this rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than January 4, 2016. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. The information collection requirements in
the proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the
PRA. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them. The information collection activities in this
proposed rule include monitoring and the maintenance of records.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The EPA has lessened the impacts for small entities by excluding
all units smaller than 25 MWe. This exclusion, in addition to the
exemptions for cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units,
eliminates the burden of higher costs for a substantial number of small
entities located in the 23 states for which the EPA is proposing FIPs.
Within these states, the EPA identified a total of 318 potentially
affected EGUs (i.e., greater than 25 MWe) warranting examination in its
RFA analysis. Of these, EPA identified 16 potentially affected EGUs
that are owned by 7 entities that met the Small Business
Administration's criteria for identifying small entities. The EPA
estimated the annualized net compliance cost to these 7 small entities
to be approximately -$38.3 million in 2017, or savings of $38.3
million. The fact that the net compliance costs for all entities are
actually net savings does not mean that each small entity would benefit
from the proposal to update CSAPR. The net savings are driven by
entities that are able to increase their revenues by increasing
generation. Of the 7 small entities considered in this analysis, 1
entity may experience
[[Page 75762]]
compliance costs greater than 1 or 3 percent of generation revenues in
2017. Since this entity is not projected to operate in the base case,
we are unable to compare the estimated compliance costs to base case
generation revenues. However, we note that this entity is located in a
cost of service market, where typically we expect entities should be
able to recover all of their costs of complying with the proposal.
EPA has concluded that there is no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE) for this rule.
Details of this analysis are presented in the RIA, which is in the
public docket.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. However, the EPA
analyzed the economic impacts of the proposal on government entities.
According to EPA's analysis, the total net economic impact on
government owned entities (state- and municipality-owned utilities and
subdivisions) is expected to be negative (i.e., cost savings) in 2014.
Note that we expect the proposal to potentially have an impact on only
one category of government-owned entities (municipality-owned
entities). This analysis does not examine potential indirect economic
impacts associated with the proposal, such as employment effects in
industries providing fuel and pollution control equipment, or the
potential effects of electricity price increases on government
entities. For more information on the estimated impact on government
entities, refer to the RIA, which is in the public docket.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
This action proposes to implement EGU NOX ozone season
emissions reductions in 23 eastern states. However, at this time, none
of the existing or planned EGUs affected by this proposed rule are
owned by tribes or located in Indian country. This action may have
tribal implications if a new affected EGU is built in Indian country.
Additionally, tribes have a vested interest in how this proposed rule
would affect air quality.
In developing CSAPR, which was promulgated on July 6, 2011 to
address interstate transport of ozone pollution under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS,\123\ the EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the
process of developing that regulation to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. A summary of that consultation
is provided in 76 FR 48346 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ CSAPR also addressed interstate transport of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) under the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comments from several tribal commenters regarding the
availability of CSAPR allowance allocations to new units in Indian
country. EPA responded to these comments by instituting Indian country
new unit set-asides in the final CSAPR. In order to protect tribal
sovereignty, these set-asides are managed and distributed by the
federal government regardless of whether CSAPR in the adjoining or
surrounding state is implemented through a FIP or SIP. While there are
no existing affected EGUs in Indian country covered by this proposal,
the Indian country set-asides will ensure that any future new units
built in Indian country will be able to obtain the necessary
allowances. This proposal maintains the Indian country new unit set-
aside and adjusts the amounts of allowances in each set-aside according
to the same methodology of the original CSAPR rule.
The EPA has informed tribes of our development of this proposal
through a National Tribal Air Association--EPA air policy conference
call (January 29, 2015). The EPA plans to further consult with tribal
officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to
permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
The EPA will facilitate this consultation before finalizing this
proposed rule.
As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official
has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is
included in the docket for this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the ozone-
related benefits, PM2.5-related co-benefits, and
CO2-related co-benefits would further improve children's
health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action, which is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, is likely to have a significant effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA notes that one aspect
of this proposal that may affect energy supply, disposition or use is
the EPA's proposing and taking comment on a range of options with
respect to use of 2015 vintage and 2016 vintage CSAPR NOX
ozone-season allowances for compliance with 2017 and later ozone season
requirements. The EPA has prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for
the proposed regulatory control alternative as follows. We estimate a
much less than 1 percent change in retail electricity prices on average
across the contiguous U.S. in 2017, and a much less than 1 percent
reduction in coal-fired electricity generation in 2017 as a result of
this rule. The EPA projects that utility power sector delivered natural
gas prices will change by less than 1 percent in 2017. For more
information on the estimated energy effects, refer to the RIA, which is
in the public docket.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects
[[Page 75763]]
on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.
The EPA notes that this action proposes to update CSAPR to reduce
interstate ozone transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
proposed rule uses EPA's authority in CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to
reduce (nitrogen oxides) NOX pollution that significantly
contributes to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas. As a
result, the proposed rule will reduce exposures to ozone in the most-
contaminated areas (i.e., areas that are not meeting the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)). In addition, this
proposed rule separately identifies both nonattainment areas and
maintenance areas. This requirement reduces the likelihood that areas
close to the level of the standard will exceed the current health-based
standards in the future. The EPA proposes to implement these emission
reductions using the CSAPR EGU NOX ozone-season emissions
trading program with assurance provisions.
EPA recognizes that many environmental justice communities have
voiced concerns in the past about emission trading and the potential
for any emission increases in any location. The EPA believes that CSAPR
mitigated these concerns and that this proposal, which applies the
CSAPR framework to reduce interstate ozone pollution and implement
these reductions, will also minimize community concerns. The EPA seeks
comment from communities on this proposal.
Ozone pollution from power plants have both local and regional
components: Part of the pollution in a given location--even in
locations near emission sources--is due to emissions from nearby
sources and part is due to emissions that travel hundreds of miles and
mix with emissions from other sources.
It is important to note that the section of the Clean Air Act
providing authority for this proposed rule, section 110(a)(2)(D),
unlike some other provisions, does not dictate levels of control for
particular facilities. CSAPR allows sources to trade allowances with
other sources in the same or different states while firmly constraining
any emissions shifting that may occur by requiring a strict emission
ceiling in each state (the assurance level). In addition, assurance
provisions in the existing CSAPR regulations that will remain in place
under this proposal outline the allowance surrender penalties for
failing to meet the assurance level; there are additional allowance
penalties as well as financial penalties for failing to hold an
adequate number of allowances to cover emissions.
This approach reduces EGU emissions in each state that
significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or maintenance
areas, while allowing power companies to adjust generation as needed
and ensure that the country's electricity needs will continue to be
met. EPA maintains that the existence of these assurance provisions,
including the penalties imposed when triggered, will ensure that state
emissions will stay below the level of the budget plus variability
limit.
In addition, all sources must hold enough allowances to cover their
emissions. Therefore, if a source emits more than its allocation in a
given year, either another source must have used less than its
allocation and be willing to sell some of its excess allowances, or the
source itself had emitted less than its allocation in one or more
previous years (i.e., banked allowances for future use).
In summary, the CSAPR minimizes community concerns about localized
hot spots and reduces ambient concentrations of pollution where they
are most needed by sensitive and vulnerable populations by: Considering
the science of ozone transport to set strict state emissions budgets to
reduce significant contributions to ozone nonattainment and maintenance
(i.e., the most polluted) areas; implementing air quality-assured
trading; requiring any emissions above the level of the allocations to
be offset by emission decreases; and imposing strict penalties for
sources that contribute to a state's exceedance of its budget plus
variability limit. In addition, it is important to note that nothing in
this proposed rule allows sources to violate their title V permit or
any other federal, state, or local emissions or air quality
requirements.
In addition, it is important to note that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d),
which addresses transport of criteria pollutants between states, is
only one of many provisions of the CAA that provide EPA, states, and
local governments with authorities to reduce exposure to ozone in
communities. These legal authorities work together to reduce exposure
to these pollutants in communities, including for minority, low-income,
and tribal populations, and provide substantial health benefits to both
the general public and sensitive sub-populations.
The EPA has informed communities of our development of this
proposal through an Environmental Justice community call (January 28,
2015) and a National Tribal Air Association--EPA air policy conference
call (January 29, 2015). The EPA plans to further consult with
communities early in the process of developing this regulation to
permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
The EPA will facilitate this engagement before finalizing this proposed
rule.
K. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This
section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 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.''
The EPA proposes to find that any final action related to this
rulemaking is ``nationally applicable'' or of ``nationwide scope and
effect'' within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). Through this
rulemaking action, the EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, a
provision which has nationwide applicability. In addition, the proposed
rule would apply to 23 States. The proposed rule is also based on a
common core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport
of pollutants between the different states subject to it. For these
reasons, the Administrator proposes to determine that any final action
related to the proposed rule is of nationwide scope and effect for
purposes of section 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any
petitions for review of any final actions regarding the rulemaking
would be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days from the date any final action is published in
the Federal Register.
In addition, pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of
the CAA, the Administrator proposes to determine 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, to ``the
promulgation or revision of an implementation plan by the Administrator
under CAA section 110(c).'' 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under section
307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section 307(d) also apply to ``such
other actions as the Administrator may
[[Page 75764]]
determine.'' 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(V). The Agency has complied with
procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d) during the course of this
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 16, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52, 78, and 97 of
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Sec. Sec. 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 52.184, 52.540, 52.584, 52.585,
52.731, 52.732, 52.789, 52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 52.940,
52.941, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1085, 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241,
52.1284, 52.1326, 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, 52.1585, 52.1684,
52.1685, 52.1784, 52.1785, 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2041,
52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2440, 52.2441,
52.2540, 52.2541, 52.2587, and 52.2588 [Amended]
0
2. Sections 52.38, 52.39, 52.54, 52.55, 52.184, 52.540, 52.584, 52.585,
52.731, 52.732, 52.789, 52.790, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 52.940,
52.941, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1085, 52.1186, 52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241,
52.1284, 52.1326, 52.1327, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1584, 52.1585, 52.1684,
52.1685, 52.1784, 52.1785, 52.1882, 52.1883, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2041,
52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2240, 52.2241, 52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2440, 52.2441,
52.2540, 52.2541, 52.2587, and 52.2588 are amended by removing ``TR
Federal Implementation Plan'' wherever it appears and adding in its
place ``CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan'', by removing ``TR
NOX'' wherever it appears and adding in its place ``CSAPR
NOX'', and by removing ``TR SO2'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``CSAPR SO2''.
Sec. Sec. 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 52.984, 52.1186,
52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685,
52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2587, and
52.2588 [Amended]
0
3. Sections 52.540, 52.840, 52.841, 52.882, 52.883, 52.984, 52.1186,
52.1187, 52.1240, 52.1241, 52.1284, 52.1428, 52.1429, 52.1684, 52.1685,
52.1784, 52.1785, 52.2140, 52.2141, 52.2283, 52.2284, 52.2587, and
52.2588 are amended by removing ``correcting in part the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation
Plan'' wherever it appears and adding in its place ``correcting the
SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation
Plan''.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 52.36 [Amended]
0
4. Section 52.36 is amended in paragraph (e)(1)(i) by removing
``paragraphs (a) through (e)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)
through (c)''.
0
5. Section 52.38 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ``the sources in the following
States'' and adding in its place ``sources in each of the following
States'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by adding ``the'' before ``CSAPR
NOX Annual trading budget'';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A), by removing ``paragraph'' and adding in
its place ``paragraphs'';
0
e. In the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B), by removing ``annual'' and
adding in its place ``Annual'', and by removing ``administrator'' and
adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
f. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by removing ``for the first control
period'' and adding in its place ``applicable to the first control
period'';
0
g. In paragraph (a)(5) introductory text, by removing ``in whole or in
part, as appropriate,'', and by removing ``paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4) of this section'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section with regard to sources in the State but not
sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State'';
0
h. In the table in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B), by removing ``annual'' and
adding in its place ``Annual'', and by removing ``administrator'' and
adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
i. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by adding after ``97.412(b)'' the words
``of this chapter'';
0
j. In paragraph (a)(5)(v), by removing ``97.425, and'' and adding in
its place ``and 97.425 of this chapter and'', and by adding after
``other provisions'' the words ``of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this
chapter'';
0
k. In paragraph (a)(5)(vi), by removing ``paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and
(ii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (a)(5)(i)'';
0
l. In paragraph (a)(6), by removing ``in whole or in part, as
appropriate,'', by removing ``described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(5)'' and adding in its place ``set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(4)'', and by removing ``the sources'' and adding in its place
``sources'';
0
m. In paragraph (a)(7), by removing ``a State'' and adding in its place
``the State'';
0
n. In paragraph (b)(1), by adding ``subpart BBBBB of'' before ``part
97'';
0
o. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
p. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(3)(i); in
redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i), by further redesignating paragraphs
(i) through (v) as paragraphs (A) through (E); and in redesignated
paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E), by further redesignating paragraphs (A) and (B)
as paragraphs (1) and (2);
0
q. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i) introductory text, by
removing ``paragraph (b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (ii)'';
0
r. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B), by adding ``the''
before ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading budget'';
0
s. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E)(1), by removing
``paragraph (b)(3)(i) through (iv)'' and adding in its place
``paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (D)'';
0
t. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(i)(E)(2), by removing
``paragraph (b)(3)(v)(A)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(E)(1)'';
0
u. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(ii);
0
v. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii)'';
0
w. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in
its place ``Sec. '', by adding after ``chapter'' the words ``with
regard to the State'', and by removing ``whenever'' and adding in its
place ``wherever'';
0
x. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) introductory text;
0
y. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B), by revising the table;
0
z. In paragraph (b)(5) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii)'', by
removing ``in whole or in part, as appropriate,'', and by removing
``paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section'' and adding in its
place ``paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section with regard to
sources in the State but not sources in any Indian country within the
borders of the State'';
0
aa. In paragraph (b)(5)(i), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in
its place ``Sec. '', by
[[Page 75765]]
adding after ``chapter'' the words ``with regard to the State'', and by
removing ``whenever'' and adding in its place ``wherever'';
0
bb. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii) introductory text;
0
cc. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(B), by removing ``auction of CSAPR'' and
adding in its place ``auctions of CSAPR'', and by revising the table;
0
dd. In paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C), by removing ``any control period'' and
adding in its place ``any such control period'';
0
ee. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), by adding a comma after ``May adopt'';
0
ff. In paragraph (b)(5)(v), by adding after ``97.512(b)'' the words
``of this chapter'';
0
gg. In paragraph (b)(5)(vi), by removing ``97.525, and'' and adding in
its place ``and 97.525 of this chapter and'', and by adding after
``other provisions'' the words ``of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this
chapter'';
0
hh. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii), by removing ``paragraph (b)(5)(i) through
(v)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (ii) of this
section and paragraphs (b)(5)(iii) through (v)'', by removing
``paragraphs (5)(ii)(B) and (C)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs
(b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C)'', and by removing ``paragraphs (b)(5)(ii) and
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(5)(i) or (ii)'';
0
ii. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing ``in whole or in part, as
appropriate,'', and by removing ``paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)''; and
0
jj. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing ``a State'' and adding in its
place ``the State''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.38 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to
emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB 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 in
the following years:
(i) With regard to emissions in 2015 and 2016 only, Florida and
South Carolina;
(ii) With regard to emissions in 2015 and each subsequent year,
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and
(iii) With regard to emissions in 2017 and each subsequent year,
Kansas.
(3) * * *
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, a State other than Georgia listed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or
(iii) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the
Administrator will approve, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance allocation provisions replacing the provisions in Sec.
97.511(a) of this chapter with regard to the State and the control
period in 2018, a list of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units and
the amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to
each unit on such list, provided that the list of units and allocations
meets the following requirements:
(A) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the
State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2015;
(B) The total amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
allocations on the list must not exceed the amount, under Sec.
97.510(a) of this chapter for the State and the control period in 2018,
of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season trading budget minus the sum
of the new unit set-aside and Indian country new unit set-aside;
(C) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified
by the Administrator; and
(D) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units
and allocations on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the
Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation
determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart BBBBB of
part 97 of this chapter;
(E) Provided that:
(1) By November 15, 2016, the State must notify the Administrator
electronically in a format specified by the Administrator of the
State's intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision
meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of
this section by April 1, 2017; and
(2) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of this section by
April 1, 2017.
(4) * * *
(ii) The State may adopt, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowance allocation or auction provisions replacing the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 97.511(a) and (b)(1) and 97.512(a) of this chapter with
regard to the State and the control period in 2017 or any subsequent
year or, for Kansas, 2019 or any subsequent year, any methodology under
which the State or the permitting authority allocates or auctions CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances and may adopt, in addition to
the definitions in Sec. 97.502 of this chapter, one or more
definitions that shall apply only to terms as used in the adopted CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance allocation or auction provisions,
if such methodology--
* * * * *
(B) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of the control period for which Deadline for submission of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances are allocations or auction results
allocated or auctioned to the Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................... November 1, 2016.
2018................................... November 1, 2016.
2019................................... June 1, 2018.
2020................................... June 1, 2018.
2021................................... June 1, 2019.
2022................................... June 1, 2019.
2023 and any year thereafter........... June 1 of the fourth year
before the year of the control
period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) May adopt, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
allocation provisions replacing the provisions in Sec. Sec. 97.511(a)
and (b)(1) and 97.512(a) of this chapter with regard to the State and
the control period in 2019 or any subsequent year or, for Georgia, 2017
or any subsequent year, any methodology under which the State or the
permitting authority allocates or auctions CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances and that--
* * * * *
(B) * * *
[[Page 75766]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of the control period for which Deadline for submission of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances are allocations or auction results
allocated or auctioned to the Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................... November 1, 2016.
2018................................... November 1, 2016.
2019................................... June 1, 2018.
2020................................... June 1, 2018.
2021................................... June 1, 2019.
2022................................... June 1, 2019.
2023 and any year thereafter........... June 1 of the fourth year
before the year of the control
period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 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?
0
6. Section 52.39 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading as set forth above;
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2), by adding ``the'' before ``CSAPR SO2
Group 1 trading budget'';
0
c. In paragraph (d)(5)(i), by removing ``paragraph (d)(1) through (4)''
and adding in its place ``paragraphs (d)(1) through (4)'';
0
d. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, by adding after ``with regard
to'' the words ``the State and'';
0
e. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing ``auction of CSAPR'' and adding
in its place ``auctions of CSAPR'', and by removing in the table
``administrator'' and adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
f. In paragraph (f) introductory text, by removing ``in whole or in
part, as appropriate,'', and by removing ``paragraphs (a), (b), (d),
and (e) of this section'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a),
(b), (d), and (e) of this section with regard to sources in the State
but not sources in any Indian country within the borders of the
State'';
0
g. In paragraph (f)(1) introductory text, by adding after ``with regard
to'' the words ``the State and'', and by removing ``and any subsequent
year'' and adding in its place ``or any subsequent year'';
0
h. In paragraph (f)(1)(i), by removing ``for such control period'' and
adding in its place ``for any such control period'';
0
i. In paragraph (f)(1)(ii), by removing ``auction of CSAPR'' and adding
in its place ``auctions of CSAPR'', and by removing in the table
``administrator'' and adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
j. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing ``paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (iii)'';
0
k. In paragraph (f)(4), by adding after ``97.612(b)'' the words ``of
this chapter'';
0
l. In paragraph (f)(5), by removing ``97.625, and'' and adding in its
place ``and 97.625 of this chapter and'', and by adding after ``other
provisions'' the words ``of subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter'';
0
m. In paragraph (f)(6), by removing ``hold an auction under paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) and (iii)'' and adding in its place ``hold an auction under
paragraph (f)(1)'';
0
n. In paragraph (g) introductory text, by adding after ``with regard
to'' the words ``the State and'';
0
o. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding ``the'' before ``CSAPR SO2
Group 2 trading budget'';
0
p. In paragraph (g)(5)(i), by removing ``paragraph (g)(1) through (4)''
and adding in its place ``paragraphs (g)(1) through (4)'';
0
q. In paragraph (h)(1) introductory text, by adding after ``with regard
to'' the words ``the State and'', and by removing ``and any subsequent
year'' and adding in its place ``or any subsequent year'';
0
r. In paragraph (h)(1)(ii), by removing ``auction of CSAPR'' and adding
in its place ``auctions of CSAPR'', and by removing in the table
``administrator'' and adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
s. In paragraph (h)(2), by removing ``hold an auction under paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) and (iii)'' and adding in its place ``hold an auction under
paragraph (h)(1)'';
0
t. In paragraph (i) introductory text, by removing ``in whole or in
part, as appropriate,'', and by removing ``paragraphs (a), (c), (g),
and (h) of this section'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a),
(c), (g), and (h) of this section with regard to sources in the State
but not sources in any Indian country within the borders of the
State'';
0
u. In paragraph (i)(1) introductory text, by adding after ``with regard
to'' the words ``the State and'', and by removing ``and any subsequent
year'' and adding in its place ``or any subsequent year'';
0
v. In paragraph (i)(1)(ii), by removing ``auction of CSAPR'' and adding
in its place ``auctions of CSAPR'', and by removing in the table
``administrator'' and adding in its place ``the Administrator'';
0
w. In paragraph (i)(4), by adding after ``97.712(b)'' the words ``of
this chapter'';
0
x. In paragraph (i)(5), by removing ``97.725, and'' and adding in its
place ``and 97.725 of this chapter and'', and by adding after ``other
provisions'' the words ``of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter'';
0
y. In paragraph (i)(6), by removing ``hold an auction under paragraphs
(i)(1)(ii) and (iii)'' and adding in its place ``hold an auction under
paragraph (i)(1)'';
0
z. In paragraph (j), by removing ``in whole or in part, as
appropriate,'', by adding after ``CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan''
the words ``set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) of this
section or paragraphs (a), (c), (g), and (h) of this section, as
applicable'', and by removing ``paragraph (b) and (c)'' and adding in
its place ``paragraph (b) or (c)''; and
0
aa. In paragraph (k), by removing ``a State'' and adding in its place
``the State''.
Subpart B--Alabama
Sec. 52.54 [Amended]
0
7. Section 52.54 is amended in paragraph (b)(2) by removing ``the''
before ``Alabama's SIP revision''.
Subpart K--Florida
0
8. Section 52.540 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.540 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, no source or
unit located in the State of Florida or Indian country within the
borders of the State shall be required under paragraph (a) of this
section to comply with the requirements set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97
of this chapter with regard to emissions after 2016.
Subpart R--Kansas
0
9. Section 52.882 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[[Page 75767]]
Sec. 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located
in the State of Kansas and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97
of this chapter must comply with such requirements. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the
State will be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Kansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP)
as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR
Federal Implementation Plan under Sec. 52.38(b), except to the extent
the Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units
located in Indian country within the borders of the State will not be
eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a
revision to Kansas' SIP.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas' SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter to
units in the State for a control period in any year, the provisions of
subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the Administrator
to complete the allocation and recordation of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances to units in the State for each such control
period shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise by such
approval of the State's SIP revision.
Subpart X--Michigan
Sec. 52.1187 [Amended]
0
10. Section 52.1187 is amended in paragraph (c)(2) by removing
``Maryland's SIP revision'' and adding in its place ``Michigan's SIP
revision''.
Subpart PP--South Carolina
0
11. Section 52.2140 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2140 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no source or
unit located in the State of South Carolina or Indian country within
the borders of the State shall be required under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section to comply with the requirements set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program in subpart BBBBB of part 97
of this chapter with regard to emissions after 2016.
PART 78--APPEAL PROCEDURES
0
12. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7411, 7426, 7601, and
7651, et seq.
Sec. Sec. 78.1 and 78.4 [Amended]
0
13. Sections 78.1 and 78.4 are amended by removing ``TR
NOX'' wherever it appears and adding in its place ``CSAPR
NOX'', and by removing ``TR SO2'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``CSAPR SO2''.
0
14. Section 78.1 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding after ``part 97 of this chapter'' the
words ``or State regulations approved under Sec. 52.38(a)(4) or (5) or
(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter or Sec. 52.39(e), (f), (h), or (i) of
this chapter'', and by adding a new third sentence at the end of the
paragraph;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(14)(viii); and
0
c. In paragraphs (b)(16)(ii), (iii), and (v), by removing
``SO2 Group 1'' and adding in its place ``SO2
Group 2''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 78.1 Purpose and scope.
(a)(1) * * * All references in paragraph (b) of this section and in
Sec. 78.3 to subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter, subpart BBBBB
of part 97 of this chapter, subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter,
and subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter shall be read to include
the comparable provisions in State regulations approved under Sec.
52.38(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this
chapter, Sec. 52.39(e) or (f) of this chapter, and Sec. 52.39(h) or
(i) of this chapter, respectively.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(14) * * *
(viii) The determination of the tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance under Sec. 97.524(f) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 78.4 [Amended]
0
15. Section 78.4 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ``a
affected'' and adding in its place ``an affected'', by adding ``or''
before ``CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit'', and by removing ``, or a
unit for which a TR opt-in application is submitted and not
withdrawn''.
PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND SO2
TRADING PROGRAMS, AND CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS
0
16. The heading of part 97 is revised to read as set forth above.
0
17. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.
Sec. Sec. 97.401 through 97.735 [Amended]
0
18. Sections 97.401 through 97.735 are amended by removing ``Transport
Rule (TR)'' wherever it appears and adding in its place ``Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)'', by removing ``TR NOX''
wherever it appears and adding in its place ``CSAPR NOX'',
and by removing ``TR SO2'' wherever it appears and adding in
its place ``CSAPR SO2''.
Subpart AAAAA--CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program
0
19. The heading of subpart AAAAA of part 97 is revised to read as set
forth above.
Sec. 97.402 [Amended]
0
20. Section 97.402 is amended by:
0
a. Relocating all definitions beginning with ``CSAPR'' to their
alphabetical locations in the list of definitions;
0
b. In the definition of ``Cogeneration system'', by removing ``steam
turbine generator'' and adding in its place ``generator'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Commence commercial operation'', in paragraph
(2) introductory text, by adding after ``defined in'' the word ``the'';
0
d. In the definition of ``CSAPR NOX Annual allowances held or hold TR
NO4 Annual allowances'', by removing ``TR NO4'' and adding in its place
``CSAPR NOX'';
0
e. In the definition of ``CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program'', by
removing ``52.39(a)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(a)'';
0
f. In the definition of ``Fossil fuel'', by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place Sec. '';
0
g. In the definition of ``Owner'', by removing the paragraph designator
``3)'' and adding in its place the paragraph designator ``(3)''; and
[[Page 75768]]
0
h. In the definition of ``Sequential use of energy'', in paragraph (2),
by adding after ``from'' the word ``a''.
Sec. 97.404 [Amended]
0
21. Section 97.404 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing ``paragraph (b)(1)(i)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(i)''; and
0
b. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
Sec. 97.406 [Amended]
0
22. Section 97.406 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7); and
0
b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), by adding ``CSAPR NOX
Annual'' before ``allowances.''
Sec. 97.410 State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-asides, and variability limits.
0
23. Section 97.410 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the heading as set forth above;
0
b. Removing ``NOX annual trading budget'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``NOX Annual trading
budget'';
0
c. Removing ``NOX annual new unit set-aside'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``new unit set-aside'';
0
d. Removing ``NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside''
wherever it appears and adding in its place ``Indian country new unit
set-aside'';
0
e. Removing ``NOX annual variability limit'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``variability limit'';
0
f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, by removing ``new unit-set
aside'' and adding in its place ``new unit set-aside'';
0
g. Adding and reserving paragraphs (a)(11)(vi) and (a)(16)(vi); and
0
h. In paragraph (c), by adding after ``Each'' the word ``State'', by
removing ``identified'', and by removing ``set aside'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``set-aside''.
Sec. 97.411 [Amended]
0
24. Section 97.411 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii), by adding after
``November 30 of'' the word ``the'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.38(a)(3), (4), or
(5)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.38(a)(4) or (5)'';
0
d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(a)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter'';
0
e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory text, by removing ``of this
paragraph'' and adding in its place ``of this section'';
0
f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(a)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter''; and
0
g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing ``of this paragraph'' and
adding in its place ``of this section''.
Sec. 97.412 [Amended]
0
25. Section 97.412 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in its
place ``Sec. '';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ``paragraph (a)(1)(i) through
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii)'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (a)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (b)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the''; and
0
g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(a)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter''.
Sec. 97.421 [Amended]
0
26. Section 97.421 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by removing ``period'' and adding
in its place ``periods''; and
0
b. In paragraph (j), by removing ``the date'' and adding in its place
``the date 15 days after the date''.
Sec. 97.425 [Amended]
0
27. Section 97.425 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(1)(i)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(1)(ii)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding ``the calculations
incorporating'' before ``any adjustments'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), by removing ``the'' before ``them''; and
0
d. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by removing after ``appropriate'' the
word ``at''.
Sec. 97.426 [Amended]
0
28. Section 97.426 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``97.427, or
97.428'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.427, or Sec. 97.428''.
Sec. 97.428 [Amended]
0
29. Section 97.428 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``paragraph
(a)(1)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (a)''.
Sec. 97.430 [Amended]
0
30. Section 97.430 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by adding after ``operator'' the
words ``of a CSAPR NOX Annual unit'', by adding ``the later
of'' before ``the following dates'' each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in its place a colon;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) introductory text;
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2);
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), by removing the final
semicolon and adding in its place a period;
0
e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding after ``Sec. 75.66'' the words
``of this chapter''.
Sec. 97.431 [Amended]
0
31. Section 97.431 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), and (d)(3)(v); and
0
b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''.
Sec. 97.434 [Amended]
0
32. Section 97.434 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), by adding ``the'' before ``requirements'';
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, by removing ``the CSAPR'' and
adding in its place ``a CSAPR'', and by adding ``the later of'' before
the final colon;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation before July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its place
``The''; and
0
d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation on or after July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its
place ``The'', and by removing ``, unless that quarter is the third or
fourth quarter of 2014, in which case reporting shall commence in the
quarter covering January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015''.
Subpart BBBBB--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program
0
33. The heading of subpart BBBBB of part 97 is revised to read as set
forth above.
0
34. Section 97.502 is amended by:
0
a. Relocating all definitions beginning with ``CSAPR'' to their
alphabetical locations in the list of definitions;
0
b. In the definition of ``Cogeneration system'', by removing ``steam
turbine generator'' and adding in its place ``generator'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Commence commercial operation'', in paragraph
(2) introductory text, by adding after ``defined in'' the word ``the'';
[[Page 75769]]
0
d. Revising the definitions of ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance'' and
``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions limitation'';
0
e. In the definitions of ``CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program'' and
``CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program'', by removing ``52.39(a)'' and
adding in in its place ``Sec. 52.39(a)'';
0
f. In the definition of ``Fossil fuel'', by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and
adding in its place Sec. '';
0
g. In the definition of ``Sequential use of energy'', in paragraph (2),
by adding after ``from'' the word ``a''; and
0
h. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of ``Tonnage
equivalent.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.502 Definitions.
* * * * *
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance means a limited authorization
under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program issued and
allocated or auctioned to a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in a
State (or Indian country within the borders of such State) by the
Administrator under this subpart, or by the State or permitting
authority under a SIP revision approved by the Administrator under
Sec. 52.38(b)(3), (4), or (5) of this chapter, to emit either:
(1) One ton of NOX in the State (or Indian country
located within the borders of such State) during a control period of
the specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or
auctioned; or
(2) As determined under Sec. 97.524(f), up to one ton of
NOX in another State (or Indian country located within the
borders of another State) or during a control period after the
specified calendar year for which the authorization is allocated or
auctioned.
* * * * *
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions limitation means, for a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season source, the tonnage of NOX
emissions authorized in a control period in a given year by the tonnage
equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances available
for deduction for the source under Sec. 97.524(a) for such control
period.
* * * * *
Tonnage equivalent means, with regard to a specific individual
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance held or deducted for an
identified purpose, the portion of one ton represented by the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance as determined under Sec.
97.524(f) or, with regard to a specific group of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances held or deducted for a common identified
purpose, the unrounded sum of the tonnage equivalents of the individual
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances comprising the group.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.504 [Amended]
0
35. Section 97.504 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing ``paragraph (b)(1)(i)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(i)'', and by removing ``TR
NOX'' and adding in its place ``CSAPR NOX''; and
0
b. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
0
36. Section 97.506 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c), (c)(1) and (2), and
(c)(4) through (7);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i) introductory text, and
(c)(2)(v)(B);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(i) as paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), and
revising it;
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B);
0
e. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), by adding ``CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season'' before ``allowances''; and
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(6) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 97.506 Standard requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As of the allowance transfer deadline for a control period in a
given year, the owners and operators of each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season source and each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit at the
source shall hold, in the source's compliance account, CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances available for deduction for such
control period under Sec. 97.524(a) with a tonnage equivalent not less
than the tons of total NOX emissions for such control period
from all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at the source.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If total NOX emissions during a control period in a
given year from all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season sources in a State (and Indian country
within the borders of such State) exceed the State assurance level,
then the owners and operators of such sources and units in each group
of one or more sources and units having a common designated
representative for such control period, where the common designated
representative's share of such NOX emissions during such
control period exceeds the common designated representative's assurance
level for the State and such control period, shall hold (in the
assurance account established for the owners and operators of such
group) CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances available for
deduction for such control period under Sec. 97.525(a) with a tonnage
equivalent not less than two times the product (rounded to the nearest
whole number), as determined by the Administrator in accordance with
Sec. 97.525(b), of multiplying--
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(B) Each ton of the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators fail to hold for
such control period in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section and each day of such control period shall
constitute a separate violation of this subpart and the Clean Air Act.
(3) * * *
(i)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this
section, a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit shall be subject to
the requirements under paragraph (c)(1) of this section for the control
period starting on the later of May 1, 2015 or the deadline for meeting
the unit's monitor certification requirements under Sec. 97.530(b) and
for each control period thereafter.
(B) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in the State of Kansas
(or Indian country within the borders of the State) that is not a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season unit in another State (or Indian country
within the borders of another State) during any portion of a control
period in 2015 or 2016 shall be subject to the requirements under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section for the control period starting on the
later of May 1, 2017 or the deadline for meeting the unit's monitor
certification requirements under Sec. 97.530(b) and for each control
period thereafter.
* * * * *
(6) Limited authorization. A CSAPR NOX; Ozone Season
allowance is a limited authorization to emit up to one ton of
NOX; during the control period in one year as determined
under Sec. 97.524(f). Such authorization is limited in its use and
duration as follows:
* * * * *
0
37. Section 97.510 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 97.510 State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit set-
asides, Indian country new unit set-asides, and variability limits.
(a) The State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new unit
set-asides, and Indian country new unit set-asides
[[Page 75770]]
for allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances for the
control periods in 2015 and thereafter are as follows:
(1) Alabama. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 31,746 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 635 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 9,979 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 205 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 15,110 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 756 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 6,949 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 141 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(3) Florida. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 28,644 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 544 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 29
tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(4) Georgia. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 27,944 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 559 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 24,041 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 481 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(5) Illinois. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 21,208 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,697 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 12,078 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 591 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(6) Indiana. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 46,876 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,406 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 28,284 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 565 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(7) Iowa. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 16,532 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 314 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 17
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 8,351 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 411 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 8 tons.
(8) Kansas. (i) [Reserved]
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 9,272 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 272 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 9 tons.
(9) Kentucky. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 36,167 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,447 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 21,519 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 647 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(10) Louisiana. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 18,115 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 344 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 18
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 15,807 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 612 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 16 tons.
(11) Maryland. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 7,179 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 144 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 4,026 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 485 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(12) Michigan. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 28,041 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 533 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 28
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 19,115 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 363 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 19 tons.
(13) Mississippi. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2015 and 2016 is 12,429 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 237 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 12
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 5,910 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 584 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 6 tons.
(14) Missouri. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 22,788 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 684 tons and for 2016 is
1,367 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 15,323 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 314 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(15) New Jersey. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 4,128 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 83 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 2,015 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,151 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(16) New York. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 10,369 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 197 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 10
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 4,450 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 89 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 4 tons.
(17) North Carolina. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2015 and 2016 is 22,168 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,308 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 22
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 12,275 tons.
[[Page 75771]]
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 236 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 12 tons.
(18) Ohio. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 41,284 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 826 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 16,660 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 337 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(19) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 is 36,567 tons and for 2016 is 22,694 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 731 tons and for 2016 is
454 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 16,215 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 309 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 16 tons.
(20) Pennsylvania. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2015 and 2016 is 52,201 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,044 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 14,387 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,017 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(21) South Carolina. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2015 and 2016 is 13,909 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 264 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 14
tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(22) Tennessee. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 14,908 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 298 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 5,481 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 109 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(23) Texas. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for
2015 and 2016 is 65,560 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 2,556 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 66
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 58,002 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 2,852 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 58 tons.
(24) Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 14,452 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 723 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 6,818 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,844 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(25) West Virginia. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading
budget for 2015 and 2016 is 25,283 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,264 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 13,390 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 268 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(26) Wisconsin. (i) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget
for 2015 and 2016 is 14,784 tons.
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 872 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 15
tons.
(iv) The NOX Ozone Season trading budget for 2017 and
thereafter is 5,561 tons.
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 115 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter
is 6 tons.
(b) The States' variability limits for the State NOX
Ozone Season trading budgets for the control periods in 2017 and
thereafter are as follows:
(1) The variability limit for Alabama is 2,096 tons.
(2) The variability limit for Arkansas is 1,459 tons.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The variability limit for Georgia is 5,049 tons.
(5) The variability limit for Illinois is 2,536 tons.
(6) The variability limit for Indiana is 5,940 tons.
(7) The variability limit for Iowa is 1,754 tons.
(8) The variability limit for Kansas is 1,947 tons.
(9) The variability limit for Kentucky is 4,519 tons.
(10) The variability limit for Louisiana is 3,319 tons.
(11) The variability limit for Maryland is 845 tons.
(12) The variability limit for Michigan is 4,014 tons.
(13) The variability limit for Mississippi is 1,241 tons.
(14) The variability limit for Missouri is 3,218 tons.
(15) The variability limit for New Jersey is 423 tons.
(16) The variability limit for New York is 935 tons.
(17) The variability limit for North Carolina is 2,578 tons.
(18) The variability limit for Ohio is 3,499 tons.
(19) The variability limit for Oklahoma is 3,405 tons.
(20) The variability limit for Pennsylvania is 3,021 tons.
(21) [Reserved]
(22) The variability limit for Tennessee is 1,151 tons.
(23) The variability limit for Texas is 12,180 tons.
(24) The variability limit for Virginia is 1,432 tons.
(25) The variability limit for West Virginia is 2,812 tons.
(26) The variability limit for Wisconsin is 1,168 tons.
(c) Each State NOX Ozone Season trading budget in this
section includes any tons in a new unit set-aside or Indian country new
unit set-aside, but does not include any tons in a variability limit.
0
38. Section 97.511 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii), by adding after ``August
31 of'' the word ``the'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(B), by adding a paragraph break after the
end of the second sentence and before the paragraph designator ``(v)''
for the following paragraph (b)(2)(v);
0
d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.38(b)(3), (4), or
(5)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or (5)'', and by
removing ``January 1'' and adding in its place ``May 1'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(3);
0
f. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter'';
0
g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory text, by removing ``of this
paragraph'' and adding in its place ``of this section'';
0
h. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter''; and
0
i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing ``of this paragraph'' and
adding in its place ``of this section''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.511 Timing requirements for CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
allocations.
* * * * *
[[Page 75772]]
(c) * * *
(3) If the Administrator already recorded such CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances under Sec. 97.521 and if the Administrator
makes the determination under paragraph (c)(1) of this section before
making deductions for the source that includes such recipient under
Sec. 97.524(b) for such control period, then the Administrator will
deduct from the account in which such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances were recorded CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocated for the same or a prior control period until the tonnage
equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances deducted
under this paragraph equals or exceeds the tonnage equivalent of such
already recorded CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances, making
all such deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances. The authorized account representative shall ensure that
there are CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances in such account
with a tonnage equivalent sufficient for completion of the deduction.
* * * * *
0
39. Section 97.512 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ``paragraph (a)(1)(i) through
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii)'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in its
place ``Sec. '';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (a)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
e. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding after ``August 31 of'' the word
``the'';
0
f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (b)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
h. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding after ``August 31 of'' the word
``the''; and
0
i. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by adding after ``Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or
(5)'' the words ``of this chapter''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.512 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance allocations to new
units.
(a) For each control period in 2015 and thereafter and for the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units in each State for which a new
unit set-aside is set forth in Sec. 97.510 for that control period,
the Administrator will allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units as follows:
* * * * *
(b) For each control period in 2015 and thereafter and for the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units located in Indian country
within the borders of each State for which an Indian country new unit
set-aside is set forth in Sec. 97.510 for that control period, the
Administrator will allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units as follows:
* * * * *
0
40. Section 97.521 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by removing ``Sec.
52.38(b)(3)(i) through (iv)'' and adding in its place ``Sec.
52.38(b)(3)(i)(A) through (D)'';
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (c)(1), and revising it;
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d) and (e); and
0
e. In paragraph (j), by removing ``the date'' and adding in its place
``the date 15 days after the date''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.521 Recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
allocations and auction results.
* * * * *
(c)(1) By December 1, 2016, the Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units at the source, or in each appropriate
Allowance Management System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units,
in accordance with Sec. 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision approved
under Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control period
in 2017 or, for such sources in Georgia, the control periods in 2017
and 2018.
(2) For the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources not in
Georgia, by December 1, 2016, the Administrator will record in each
such source's compliance account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at
the source in accordance with Sec. 97.511(a) for the control period in
2018, unless the State in which the source is located notifies the
Administrator in writing by November 15, 2016 of the State's intent to
submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April 1, 2017
meeting the requirements of Sec. 52.38(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of
this chapter.
(A) If the State does not submit to the Administrator by April 1,
2017 such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by April
15, 2017 in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance
with Sec. 97.511(a) for the control period in 2018.
(B) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2017 and
the Administrator approves by October 1, 2017 such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2017 in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units at the source as provided in such
approved, complete SIP revision for the control period in 2018.
(C) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2017 and
the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2017 such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2017 in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units at the source in accordance with
Sec. 97.511(a) for the control period in 2018.
(d) By July 1, 2018, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units at the source, or in each appropriate
Allowance Management System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units,
in accordance with Sec. 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision approved
under Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control periods
in 2019 and 2020.
(e) By July 1, 2019, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season source's compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances allocated to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units at the source, or in each appropriate
Allowance Management System account the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances auctioned to CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units,
in accordance with Sec. 97.511(a), or with a SIP revision approved
under Sec. 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, for the control periods
in 2021 and 2022.
* * * * *
0
41. Section 97.524 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (c)(2)
introductory text, and (c)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) through (v);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 97.524 Compliance with CSAPR NOX Ozone Season emissions
limitation.
* * * * *
[[Page 75773]]
(b) Deductions for compliance. After the recordation, in accordance
with Sec. 97.523, of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
transfers submitted by the allowance transfer deadline for a control
period in a given year, the Administrator will deduct from each
source's compliance account CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances available under paragraph (a) of this section in order to
determine whether the source meets the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season emissions limitation for such control period, making all such
deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances, as
follows:
(1) Until the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances deducted equals or exceeds the number of tons of
total NOX emissions from all CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season units at the source for such control period; or
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Default order of deductions. The Administrator will deduct
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances under paragraph (b) or (d)
of this section from the source's compliance account in accordance with
a complete request under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, in the
absence of such request or in the case of identification of an
insufficient amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances in
such request, in the following order:
(i) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage equivalent of
one ton per allowance that were allocated or auctioned from the
NOX Ozone Season trading budget for the State within whose
borders the source is located to the units at the source and were not
transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of recordation;
(ii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section to have a tonnage equivalent of
one ton per allowance that were not allocated or auctioned from the
NOX Ozone Season trading budget for the State within whose
borders the source is located to any unit at the source and were
transferred to and recorded in the compliance account pursuant to this
subpart, in the order of recordation;
(iii) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined
under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to have a tonnage equivalent of
four tenths of one ton per allowance, in the order of recordation;
(iv) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined
under paragraph (f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage equivalent of
one fourth of one ton per allowance that were allocated or auctioned
from the NOX Ozone Season trading budget for the State
within whose borders the source is located to the units at the source
and were not transferred out of the compliance account, in the order of
recordation; and
(v) Any CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances determined
under paragraph (f)(3) of this section to have a tonnage equivalent of
one fourth of one ton per allowance that were not allocated or
auctioned from the NOX Ozone Season trading budget for the
State within whose borders the source is located to any unit at the
source and were transferred to and recorded in the compliance account
pursuant to this subpart, in the order of recordation.
(d) Deductions for excess emissions. After making the deductions
for compliance under paragraph (b) of this section for a control period
in a year in which the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source has
excess emissions, the Administrator will deduct from the source's
compliance account CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
allocated for a control period in a prior year or the control period in
the year of the excess emissions or in the immediately following year,
making all such deductions in whole CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances, until the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances deducted under this paragraph equals or exceeds
two times the number of tons of the source's excess emissions.
* * * * *
(f) Tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances. Where
a determination is needed of the tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance held or deducted under any
provision of Sec. 97.506(c), Sec. 97.511(c), Sec. 97.524, Sec.
97.525, Sec. 97.527, or Sec. 97.528 relating to the holding or
deduction of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances, the
Administrator will make the determination as follows, provided that
notwithstanding any such determination the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance remains subject to the limitations in Sec.
97.506(c)(6):
(1) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this
section, the tonnage equivalent of each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowance shall be one ton per allowance.
(2) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance has been
allocated or auctioned for a control period in 2017 or a subsequent
year from the NOX Ozone Season trading budget for Georgia,
and where the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance is held or
deducted for any purpose related to emissions from a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season unit in another State (or Indian country
within the borders of another State) or for the purpose of correcting
an allocation or recordation error affecting a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit in another State (or Indian country within the
borders of another State), the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance shall be four tenths of one ton
per allowance.
(3) Where a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance has been
allocated or auctioned for a control period in 2015 or 2016, and where
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance is held or deducted for
any purpose related to emissions from a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit in any State except Georgia (or Indian country within the
borders of such a State) in a control period in 2017 or a subsequent
year or for the purpose of correcting an allocation or recordation
error affecting a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit in any State
except Georgia (or Indian country within the borders of such a State)
for a control period in 2017 or a subsequent year, the tonnage
equivalent of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance shall be
one fourth of one ton per allowance.
(4) The Administrator will determine the year of the compliance
period for which a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance was
allocated or auctioned and the State from whose NOX Ozone
Season trading budget the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowance
was allocated or auctioned based on the records maintained in the
Allowance Management System.
0
42. Section 97.525 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(2)(ii);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(1)(i)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(1)(ii)'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding ``the calculations
incorporating'' before ``any adjustments''; and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5), (b)(6) introductory text,
(b)(6)(i) and (ii), (b)(6)(iii) introductory text, and (b)(6)(iii)(A)
and (B).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.525 Compliance with CSAPR NOX Ozone Season assurance
provisions.
* * * * *
(b) Deductions for compliance. The Administrator will deduct CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances available under paragraph (a) of
this section for compliance with the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
assurance provisions for a State for a control period in a given year
in accordance with the following
[[Page 75774]]
procedures, making all such deductions in whole CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances:
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice,
the Administrator will calculate, for each such State (and Indian
country within the borders of such State) and such control period and
each common designated representative for such control period for a
group of one or more CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources and
units in the State (and Indian country within the borders of such
State), the common designated representative's share of the total
NOX emissions from all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units at CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources in the State (and
Indian country within the borders of such State), the common designated
representative's assurance level, and the tonnage equivalent (if any)
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances that the owners and
operators of such group of sources and units must hold in accordance
with the calculation formula in Sec. 97.506(c)(2)(i) and will
promulgate a notice of data availability of the results of these
calculations.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation
of each notice of data availability required in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, the owners and operators described in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account
established for them and for the appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and State (and
Indian country within the borders of such State) under paragraph (b)(3)
of this section CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances, available
for deduction under paragraph (a) of this section, with a total tonnage
equivalent not less than the tonnage equivalent such owners and
operators are required to hold with regard to such sources, units and
State (and Indian country within the borders of such State) as
calculated by the Administrator and referenced in such notice.
* * * * *
(5) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)
of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of
data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section
and after the recordation, in accordance with Sec. 97.523, of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowance transfers submitted by midnight
of such date, the Administrator will determine whether the owners and
operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section hold, in the
assurance account for the appropriate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season units, and State (and Indian
country within the borders of such State) established under paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
available under paragraph (a) of this section with the tonnage
equivalent that the owners and operators are required to hold with
regard to such sources, units, and State (and Indian country within the
borders of such State) as calculated by the Administrator and
referenced in the notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this
section.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any
revision, made by or submitted to the Administrator after the
promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a given year, of
any data used in making the calculations referenced in such notice, the
tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
that the owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with
Sec. 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control period shall continue to be such
tonnage equivalents as calculated by the Administrator and referenced
in such notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section,
except as follows:
(i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result
of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such data on
appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such notice, or on appeal under
section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78
of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will
use the data as so revised to recalculate the tonnage equivalents of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances that owners and operators
are required to hold in accordance with the calculation formula in
Sec. 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control period with regard to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units, and State (and Indian country within the borders of such State)
involved, provided that such litigation under part 78 of this chapter,
or the proceeding under part 78 of this chapter that resulted in the
decision appealed in such litigation under section 307 of the Clean Air
Act, was initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such
notice required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
(ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season source and CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit whose designated representative submitted such data under
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, as a result of a decision in or
settlement of litigation concerning such submission, then the
Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the
tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances
that owners and operators are required to hold in accordance with the
calculation formula in Sec. 97.506(c)(2)(i) for such control period
with regard to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units, and State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) involved, provided that such litigation was
initiated no later than 30 days after promulgation of such notice
required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, the tonnage
equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances that the
owners and operators are required to hold for such control period with
regard to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season sources, CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season units, and State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) involved--
(A) Where the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances that the owners and operators are required to hold
increases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the
Administrator will establish a new, reasonable deadline on which the
owners and operators shall hold CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances with the additional tonnage equivalent in the assurance
account established by the Administrator for the appropriate CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units, and State (and Indian country within the borders of such State)
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The owners' and operators'
failure to hold such additional tonnage equivalent, as required, before
the new deadline shall not be a violation of the Clean Air Act. The
owners' and operators' failure to hold such additional tonnage
equivalent, as required, as of the new deadline shall be a violation of
the Clean Air Act. Each ton of the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances that the owners and operators
fail to hold as required as of the new deadline, and each day in such
control period, shall be a separate violation of the Clean Air Act.
[[Page 75775]]
(B) For the owners and operators for which the tonnage equivalent
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season allowances required to be held
decreases as a result of the use of all such revised data, the
Administrator will record, in all accounts from which CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances were transferred by such owners
and operators for such control period to the assurance account
established by the Administrator for the appropriate CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season sources, CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
units, and State (and Indian country within the borders of such State)
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a total amount of the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances held in such assurance account
that the Administrator determines may be transferred from such
assurance account without causing the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances held by such owners and
operators in such assurance account to fall below the tonnage
equivalent required to be held by such owners and operators in such
assurance account, making any transfers in whole CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season allowances. If CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
allowances were transferred to such assurance account from more than
one account, the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season allowances recorded in each such transferor account will be in
proportion to the percentage of the total tonnage equivalent of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season allowances transferred to such assurance
account for such control period from such transferor account.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.528 [Amended]
0
43. Section 97.528 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``paragraph
(a)(1)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (a)''.
0
44. Section 97.530 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1) through (3);
0
b. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b)(4)(iii), by adding after ``Sec. 75.66'' the words
``of this chapter''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.530 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Compliance deadlines. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this section, the owner or operator of a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit shall meet the monitoring system certification and other
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section on or before
the latest of the following dates and shall record, report, and
quality-assure the data from the monitoring systems under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section on and after the latest of the following dates:
(1)(i) For a unit other than a unit described in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section, May 1, 2015; or
(ii) For a unit in the State of Kansas (or Indian country within
the borders of the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season unit in another State (or Indian country within the borders of
another State) during any portion of a control period in 2015 or 2016,
May 1, 2017;
(2) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit commences
commercial operation; or
(3) Where data for the unit is reported on a control period basis
under Sec. 97.534(d)(2)(ii)(B), and where the compliance date under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section is not in a month from May through
September, May 1 immediately after the compliance date under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.531 [Amended]
0
45. Section 97.531 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), and (d)(3)(v);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (5).
0
46. Section 97.534 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), by adding ``the'' before ``requirements'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (d)(6) as paragraph (d)(5)(ii); and
0
d. In paragraph (e)(3), by removing ``paragraph (d)(2)(ii)'' and adding
in its place ``paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B)''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.534 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The designated representative shall report the NOX
mass emissions data and heat input data for a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season unit, in an electronic quarterly report in a format
prescribed by the Administrator, for each calendar quarter indicated
under paragraph (d)(2) of this section beginning with the latest of:
(i)(A) For a unit other than a unit described in paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, the calendar quarter covering May 1, 2015
through June 30, 2015; or
(B) For a unit in the State of Kansas (or Indian country within the
borders of the State) that is not a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
unit in another State (or Indian country within the borders of another
State) during any portion of a control period in 2015 or 2016, the
calendar quarter covering May 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017;
(ii) The calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date
of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial
certification under Sec. 97.530(b); or
(iii) For a unit that reports on a control period basis under
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if the calendar quarter under
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section does not include a month from May
through September, the calendar quarter covering May 1 through June 30
immediately after the calendar quarter under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section.
(2)(i) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit is subject to
the Acid Rain Program or a CSAPR NOX Annual emissions
limitation or if the owner or operator of such unit chooses to report
on an annual basis under this subpart, then the designated
representative shall meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 of
this chapter (concerning monitoring of NOX mass emissions)
for such unit for the entire year and report the NOX mass
emissions data and heat input data for such unit for the entire year.
(ii) If a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season unit is not subject to
the Acid Rain Program or a CSAPR NOX Annual emissions
limitation, then the designated representative shall either:
(A) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter
for such unit for the entire year and report the NOX mass
emissions data and heat input data for such unit for the entire year in
accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section; or
(B) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter
(including the requirements in Sec. 75.74(c) of this chapter) for such
unit for the control period and report the NOX mass
emissions data and heat input data (including the data described in
Sec. 75.74(c)(6) of this chapter) for such unit only for the control
period of each year.
* * * * *
Subpart CCCCC--CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program
0
47. The heading of subpart CCCCC of part 97 is revised to read as set
forth above.
[[Page 75776]]
Sec. 97.602 [Amended]
0
48. Section 97.602 is amended by:
0
a. Relocating all definitions beginning with ``CSAPR'' to their
alphabetical locations in the list of definitions;
0
b. In the definition of ``Cogeneration system'', by removing ``steam
turbine generator'' and adding in its place ``generator'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Commence commercial operation'', in paragraph
(2) introductory text, by adding after ``defined in'' the word ``the'';
0
d. In the definition of ``Fossil fuel'', by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place Sec. ''; and
0
e. In the definition of ``Sequential use of energy'', in paragraph (2),
by adding after ``from'' the word ``a''.
Sec. 97.604 [Amended]
0
49. Section 97.604 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing ``paragraph (b)(1)(i)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(i)''; and
0
b. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
Sec. 97.606 [Amended]
0
50. Section 97.606 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7);
0
b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), by adding ``CSAPR SO2
Group 1'' before ``allowances''; and
0
c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing ``subpart H'' and adding in its
place ``subpart B''.
Sec. 97.610 State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit
set-asides, Indian country new unit set-asides, and variability limits.
0
51. Section 97.610 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the heading as set forth above;
0
b. Removing ``SO2 trading budget'' wherever it appears and
adding in its place ``SO2 Group 1 trading budget'';
0
c. Removing ``SO2 new unit set-aside'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place ``new unit set-aside'';
0
d. Removing ``SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside''
wherever it appears and adding in its place ``Indian country new unit
set-aside'';
0
e. Removing ``SO2 variability limit'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place ``variability limit'';
0
f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, by adding ``Group 1'' before
``trading budgets'', and by removing ``new unit-set aside'' and adding
in its place ``new unit set-aside'';
0
g. Adding and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (a)(11)(vi); and
0
h. In paragraph (c), by adding after ``Each'' the word ``State'', and
by removing ``set aside'' wherever it appears and adding in its place
``set-aside''.
Sec. 97.611 [Amended]
0
52. Section 97.611 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii), by adding after
``November 30 of'' the word ``the'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(d), (e), or (f)''
and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(e) or (f)'';
0
d. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.39(e) or (f)''
the words ``of this chapter'';
0
e. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory text, by removing ``of this
paragraph'' and adding in its place ``of this section'';
0
f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.39(e) or
(f)'' the words ``of this chapter''; and
0
g. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing ``of this paragraph'' and
adding in its place ``of this section''.
Sec. 97.612 [Amended]
0
53. Section 97.612 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in its
place ``Sec. '';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ``paragraph (a)(1)(i) through
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii)'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (a)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (b)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the'';
0
g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(d), (e), or
(f)'' and by adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(e) or (f)''; and
0
h. In paragraph (b)(11), by adding after ``paragraphs (b)(9), (10) and
(12)'' the words ``of this section''.
Sec. 97.621 [Amended]
0
54. Section 97.621 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by removing ``period'' and adding
in its place ``periods'';
0
b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(e) and (f)''
and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(e) or (f)''; and
0
c. In paragraph (j), by removing ``the date'' and adding in its place
``the date 15 days after the date''.
Sec. 97.625 [Amended]
0
55. Section 97.625 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(1)(i)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(1)(ii)''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding ``the calculations
incorporating'' before ``any adjustments''.
Sec. 97.628 [Amended]
0
56. Section 97.628 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``paragraph
(a)(1)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (a)''.
Sec. 97.630 [Amended]
0
57. Section 97.630 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by adding after ``operator'' the
words ``of a CSAPR SO2 Group 1 unit'', by adding ``the later
of'' before ``the following dates'' each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in its place a colon;
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) introductory text;
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2);
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), by removing the final
semicolon and adding in its place a period;
0
e. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
f. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding after ``Sec. 75.66'' the words
``of this chapter''.
Sec. 97.631 [Amended]
0
58. Section 97.631 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), and (d)(3)(v);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3).
Sec. 97.634 [Amended]
0
59. Section 97.634 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b) by adding ``the'' before ``requirements'';
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, by removing ``the CSAPR'' and
adding in its place ``a CSAPR'', and by adding ``the later of'' before
the final colon;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation before July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its place
``The''; and
0
d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation on or after July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its
place ``The'', and by removing ``, unless that quarter is the third or
fourth quarter of 2014, in which case reporting shall commence in the
quarter covering January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015''.
[[Page 75777]]
Subpart DDDDD--CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program
0
60. The heading of subpart DDDDD of part 97 is revised to read as set
forth above.
Sec. 97.702 [Amended]
0
61. Section 97.702 is amended by:
0
a. Relocating all definitions beginning with ``CSAPR'' to their
alphabetical locations in the list of definitions;
0
b. In the definition of ``Cogeneration system'', by removing ``steam
turbine generator'' and adding in its place ``generator'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Commence commercial operation'', in paragraph
(2) introductory text, by adding after ``defined in'' the word ``the'';
0
d. In the definition of ``Fossil fuel'', by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
e. In the definition of ``Sequential use of energy'', in paragraph (2),
by adding after ``from'' the word ``a''.
Sec. 97.704 [Amended]
0
62. Section 97.704 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing ``paragraph (b)(1)(i)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(2)(i)''; and
0
b. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
Sec. 97.706 [Amended]
0
63. Section 97.706 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and (c)(4)
through (7);
0
b. In the heading of paragraph (c)(4), by adding ``CSAPR SO2
Group 2'' before ``allowances''; and
0
c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing ``subpart H'' and adding in its
place ``subpart B''.
Sec. 97.710 State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-asides, and variability limits.
0
64. Section 97.710 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the heading as set forth above;
0
b. Removing ``SO2 trading budget'' wherever it appears and
adding in its place ``SO2 Group 2 trading budget'';
0
c. Removing ``SO2 new unit set-aside'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place ``new unit set-aside'';
0
d. Removing ``SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside''
wherever it appears and adding in its place ``Indian country new unit
set-aside'';
0
e. Removing ``SO2 variability limit'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place ``variability limit'';
0
f. In paragraph (a) introductory text, by adding ``Group 2'' before
``trading budgets'', and by removing ``new unit-set aside'' and adding
in its place ``new unit set-aside''; and
0
g. In paragraph (c), by adding after ``Each'' the word ``State'', by
removing ``identified under'' and adding in its place ``in'', by
removing ``excludes'' and adding in its place ``does not include'', and
by removing ``set aside'' wherever it appears and adding in its place
``set-aside''.
Sec. 97.711 [Amended]
0
65. Section 97.711 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
b. In paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii), by adding after
``November 30 of'' the word ``the'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, by adding after ``approved''
each time it appears the word ``under'';
0
d. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(g), (h), or (i)''
and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(h) or (i)'';
0
e. In paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.39(h) or (i)''
the words ``of this chapter'';
0
f. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii) introductory text, by removing ``of this
paragraph'' and adding in its place ``of this section'';
0
g. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B), by adding after ``Sec. 52.39(h) or
(i)'' the words ``of this chapter''; and
0
h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), by removing ``of this paragraph'' and
adding in its place ``of this section''.
Sec. 97.712 [Amended]
0
66. Section 97.712 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing ``Sec. Sec. '' and adding in its
place ``Sec. '';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i), by removing ``paragraph (a)(1)(i) through
(iii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii)'';
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (a)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), by adding after ``paragraph (b)(4)(i)'' the
words ``of this section'';
0
f. In paragraph (b)(9)(i), by adding after ``November 30 of'' the word
``the''; and
0
g. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(g), (h), or
(i)'' and by adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(h) or (i)''.
Sec. 97.721 [Amended]
0
67. Section 97.721 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), by removing ``period'' and adding
in its place ``periods''';
0
b. In paragraphs (f) and (g), by removing ``Sec. 52.39(h) and (i)''
and adding in its place ``Sec. 52.39(h) or (i)''; and
0
c. In paragraph (j), by removing ``the date'' and adding in its place
``the date 15 days after the date'', and by removing the comma before
``described''.
Sec. 97.725 [Amended]
0
68. Section 97.725 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, by removing ``paragraph
(b)(1)(i)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (b)(1)(ii)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B), by adding ``the calculations
incorporating'' before ``any adjustments''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b)(6)(iii)(B), by removing after ``appropriate'' the
word ``at''.
Sec. 97.728 [Amended]
0
69. Section 97.728 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``paragraph
(a)(1)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (a)''.
Sec. 97.730 [Amended]
0
70. Section 97.730 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the heading of paragraph (a);
0
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by adding after ``operator'' the
words ``of a CSAPR SO2 Group 2 unit'', by adding ``the later
of'' before ``the following dates'' each time it appears, and by
removing the final period and adding in its place a colon;
0
c. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(1) and
(2);
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2), by removing the final
semicolon and adding in its place a period;
0
f. In paragraph (b)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
g. In paragraph (b)(3)(iii), by adding after ``Sec. 75.66'' the words
``of this chapter''.
Sec. 97.731 [Amended]
0
71. Section 97.731 is amended by:
0
a. Italicizing the headings of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (d)(3)(i)
through (iv), (d)(3)(iv)(A) through (D), and (d)(3)(v);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, by removing ``Sec. Sec. ''
and adding in its place ``Sec. ''; and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3) as paragraphs
(d)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (3).
Sec. 97.734 [Amended]
0
72. Section 97.734 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (b) by adding ``the'' before ``requirements'';
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, by removing ``the CSAPR'' and
adding in its place ``a CSAPR'', and by adding ``the later of'' before
the final colon;
[[Page 75778]]
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation before July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its place
``The''; and
0
d. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing ``For a unit that commences
commercial operation on or after July 1, 2014, the'' and adding in its
place ``The'', and by removing ``, unless that quarter is the third or
fourth quarter of 2014, in which case reporting shall commence in the
quarter covering January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015''.
[FR Doc. 2015-29796 Filed 12-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
