Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Supplemental Federal “Good Neighbor Plan” Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 12666-12741 [2024-01064]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12666
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663; EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668; EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0402;
FRL–11159–01–OAR]
RIN 2060–AW09
Supplemental Air Plan Actions:
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for
the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Supplemental Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ Requirements for the 2015 8Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental
proposed rule and withdrawal of
proposed rules.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to partially disapprove and
partially approve State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submissions from Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee regarding interstate transport
for the 2015 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
This action also proposes a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee to address these States’
obligations to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment, or
interference with maintenance, of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The
FIP would require fossil fuel-fired
power plants in the five states to
participate in an allowance-based ozone
season nitrogen oxides emissions
trading program beginning in 2025. The
Agency is also proposing to establish
nitrogen oxides emissions limitations
applicable to certain other industrial
stationary sources in Arizona with a
compliance year no earlier than 2027.
Finally, this action also includes
proposed technical corrections to the
regulatory text previously promulgated
to establish comparable FIP
requirements for emissions sources in
other states.
DATES:
Comments: Comments must be
received on or before May 16, 2024.
Public hearing: The EPA will hold a
virtual public hearing on March 4, 2024.
Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for additional
information on the public hearing.
Information collection request: Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of
consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or
before March 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: You may send comments,
identified as Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2023–0402, by any of the
following methods: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2023–0402 in the subject line of the
message.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Hearing: The virtual hearing will be
held at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/
csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. The public
hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and
end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or
1 hour after the last registered speaker
has spoken. The EPA will make every
effort to accommodate all individuals
interested in providing oral testimony.
A lunch break is scheduled from 12:00
p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Refer to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Uher, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (C539–04),
Environmental Protection Agency, 109
TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541–5534; email address:
uher.thomas@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public participation: Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0402, at https://
www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit to the EPA’s docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system).
There are three dockets supporting
this action, EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0402,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663, and EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0668. All comments
regarding information in any of these
dockets are to be made in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0402.
The index to the docket for this
action, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2023–0402, is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
Preamble Glossary of Terms and
Abbreviations
The following are abbreviations of
terms used in the preamble.
2016v1 2016 Version 1 Emissions Modeling
Platform
2016v2 2016 Version 2 Emissions Modeling
Platform
2016v3 2016 Version 3 Emissions Modeling
Platform
ARP Acid Rain Program
ADEQ Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed Units
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
DAHS Data Acquisition and Handling
System
EAV Equivalent Annualized Values
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EHD Environmental Health Department
EIA Economic Impact Assessment
EPA or the Agency United States
Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
g/hp-hr Grams per horsepower per hour
Group 2 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 allowances
Group 2 trading program CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
Group 3 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances
Group 3 Trading Program CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
LNB Low-NOX Burners
MJO Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MW Megawatts
NAA Nonattainment Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
NMED New Mexico Environment
Department
Non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSCR Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction
OMB United States Office of Management
and Budget
PBI Proprietary Business Information
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV Present Value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines
SC–CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIL Significant Impact Level
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TAS Treatment as State
TDEC Tennessee Department of
Environmental Control
TSD Technical Support Document
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Violating-Monitor Receptors ViolatingMonitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking?
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
D. Severability
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
B. Description of the EPA’s 4-Step
Interstate Transport Regulatory Process
C. The EPA’s Ozone Transport Modeling
D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating
Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
1. Selection of Analytic Years
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport
Framework
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport
Framework
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport
Framework
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport
Framework
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate
Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
1. Arizona
Prior Notices Related to Arizona’s SIP
Submission
2. New Mexico
a. Information Provided by New Mexico
Regarding Step 1
b. Information Provided by New Mexico
Regarding Step 2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
c. New Mexico Letter
3. Tennessee
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee’s SIP
Submission
B. EPA Evaluation
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by
Arizona Regarding Steps 1 and 2
b. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
Modeling and Findings for Arizona
c. Evaluation of Information Provided
Regarding Step 3
d. Conclusion
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by
New Mexico Regarding Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by
New Mexico Regarding Step 2
c. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
Modeling and Findings for New Mexico
d. Evaluation of Information Provided
Regarding Step 3
e. NMED’s July 2023 Letter
f. Conclusion
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by
Tennessee Regarding Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by
Tennessee Regarding Step 2
c. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
Modeling and Findings for Tennessee
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for
Tenessee Regarding Step 3
e. Conclusion
C. Proposed SIP Action
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for This
Action
A. Correction of the EPA’s Determination
Regarding SIP Submissions From Iowa
and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA’s
FIP Authority for Iowa and Kansas
B. Application of Rule in Indian Country
and Necessary or Appropriate Finding
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX
Emissions Reduction Potential To
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
C. Control Stringencies Represented by
Cost Threshold ($ per Ton) and
Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX
Reductions, and Air Quality
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions
Reductions Assessment
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment
Methodology
3. Results for Combined EGU and NonEGU Air Quality Assessment
4. Conclusions
VII. Regulatory Requirements and
Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
1. Applicability and Tentative
Identification of Newly Affected Units
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading
Program Provisions
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3
Allowance Bank for the 2025 Control
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12667
Period and Adjustment to Bank
Recalibration for the 2025 Control Period
B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
C. Submitting a SIP
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for
2026 Under EGU Trading Program
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for
2027 and Beyond Under EGU Trading
Program
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU
Trading Program With an Integrated
State EGU Trading Program
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the
Trading Program
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU
or Industrial Source Control
Requirements
D. Title V Permitting
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations,
Implications and Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
B. Outreach
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the
Proposed Rule
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing
Regulatory Text
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan’s Requirements to
EGUs in Additional States
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan’s Requirements to
Non-EGUs in Additional States
C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
to Previously Finalized Regulatory Text
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for
Electric Generating Units
2. Information Collection Request for NonElectric Generating Units
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096:
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment
to Environmental Justice for All
K. Determinations Under CAA Section
307(b)(1) and (d)
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule would resolve the
interstate transport obligations of five
states under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred to as the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12668
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
‘‘good neighbor provision’’ or the
‘‘interstate transport provision’’ of the
Act, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On
October 1, 2015, the EPA revised the
primary and secondary 8-hour standards
for ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb).1
States were required to provide ozone
infrastructure SIP submissions to fulfill
interstate transport obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2018.
The EPA proposes to make a finding
that interstate transport of ozone
precursor emissions from five upwind
states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in other states. The EPA is
withdrawing its previous proposed
actions on SIP submissions from
Arizona and Tennessee,2 proposing to
partially approve and partially
disapprove good neighbor SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico,
and Tennessee, and to error-correct its
prior good neighbor SIP approval
actions for Iowa and Kansas to partial
disapprovals.3 To fulfill the EPA’s
responsibility to ensure that states meet
their interstate transport obligations as
expeditiously as practicable to meet
attainment deadlines for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA also proposes FIP
requirements for these five states to
prohibit the emissions that interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
other states. For states covered in this
action, the EPA proposes to define new
ozone season nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions performance obligations for
Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sources
and to fulfill those obligations by
implementing an allowance-based
ozone season trading program beginning
in 2025. The EPA is also proposing to
establish emissions limitations
beginning in 2027 for certain other
industrial stationary sources (referred to
generally as ‘‘non-Electric Generating
Units’’ (non-EGUs) in Arizona. Taken
together, these strategies will fully
resolve the covered states’ good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
The EPA proposes to implement the
necessary emissions reductions as
follows. The proposed FIP requirements
establish ozone season NOX emissions
budgets for EGUs in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee
and require EGUs in these states to
participate in the revised version of the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
1 See
80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015).
87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022). (The EPA’s
proposed approval of Arizona’s SIP); and 87 FR
9545 (February 22, 2022) (The EPA’s proposed
disapproval of Tennessee’s SIP).
3 See 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); and 87
FR 19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
2 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program established in the final Federal
Good Neighbor Plan Rule.4 For states
currently covered by the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
(i.e., Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee), the EPA
proposes to amend existing FIPs to
transition EGU sources in these states
from the Group 2 trading program to the
revised Group 3 trading program,
beginning with the 2025 ozone season.
The EPA proposes to issue new FIPs for
Arizona and New Mexico, which are not
currently covered by any CSAPR NOX
ozone season trading program. Under
CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA also
proposes to extend the FIP requirements
to apply in Indian country located
within the geographical boundaries of
the states included in this proposal,
including Indian reservation lands and
other areas of Indian country over
which the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction.
The timeframes for implementation of
these emissions-reduction strategies are,
in the EPA’s judgment, as expeditious as
practicable and aligned to the extent
possible with the attainment schedule
for downwind areas in nonattainment of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed
in section VI. of this document, the EPA
proposes to find that the 2025 ozone
season is as expeditious as practicable
to implement emissions reductions
associated with near-term emissions
control strategies at EGUs, and the 2027
ozone season is as expeditious as
practicable to implement emissions
reductions associated with new postcombustion control installations at
EGUs as well as from installation of new
pollution controls at non-EGUs.
As identified in section VI. of this
document, the EPA proposes to find
that, because Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee are not linked to
receptors in the 2026 ozone season, the
near-term EGU emissions-control
strategy is sufficient to eliminate these
states’ interference with maintenance of
the NAAQS in other states. Because
Arizona remains linked to receptors
through the 2026 ozone season, the EPA
proposes to find that additional NOX
emissions from EGUs and NOX
emissions from non-EGU sources in
Arizona are interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states and that additional costeffective controls for NOX emissions
reductions are available from EGUs and
in certain industries that would result in
meaningful air quality improvements at
downwind receptors. Thus, in addition
to more stringent EGU emissions
budgets for Arizona beginning in 2027,
the EPA proposes to require emissions
limitations beginning in 2027 for nonEGUs located within Arizona. The
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established
NOX emissions limitations during the
ozone season for the following unit
types for sources in non-EGU industries:
reciprocating internal combustion
engines (RICE) in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; boilers and reheat
furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing;
boilers in Basic Chemical
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining,
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Mills and combustors and
incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors
and Incinerators.5
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
In this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
providing an opportunity for public
comment on its proposed conclusion
that SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee do not contain
the necessary provisions to prohibit
emissions from sources within their
states from interfering with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind
areas. The EPA also proposes to find it
necessary to issue an error correction
under the authority of CAA section
110(k)(6) of its previous approval
actions for Kansas and Iowa and
proposes to partially disapprove these
states’ interstate transport submissions.
In addition, the EPA proposes to
conclude that emissions from sources in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states, and therefore the EPA is
proposing FIPs to address these states’
transport obligations through expanding
the coverage of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan Rule 6 finalized on March
15, 2023. The EPA is proposing to
implement the ozone season NOX
trading program requirements for EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan as the FIPs for Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee
and the emissions limits for non-EGU
(industrial) sources in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan as the FIP for Arizona.
These control strategies, if finalized,
5 88
4 Federal
‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88
FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FR 36654, at 36817.
‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88
FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
6 Federal
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
will prohibit the emissions from these
five states identified as interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states.
The EPA proposes to extend the
coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan to these five additional states based
on the same data and analyses
contained in that rule. In the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified
and finalized FIPs for 23 states with
emissions that significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. The EPA used the same
set of nationwide air quality modeling,
air quality monitoring data, and
technical analysis of emissions control
opportunities in defining good neighbor
obligations for all states covered in that
action. Consistent with the application
of the EPA’s 4-step interstate transport
framework, which has been used in
prior good neighbor rules like the
CSAPR and upheld by the federal
courts, the EPA applied emissions
control requirements on a uniform basis
across those states based on that record.
The EPA maintains that it is
reasonable, appropriate, and consistent
with the EPA’s prior decisions to extend
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s
contribution analysis and emissions
control requirements to include the five
states covered in this action. The EPA
has not identified any factors unique to
these five states that would warrant
applying a different approach. These
five states were not addressed in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan because the
EPA was not positioned to take final
rulemaking action to disapprove SIPs,
error correct prior approvals to
disapprovals, or promulgate FIPs for
these states at that time. To maintain
consistency across all states such that
the allocation of responsibility for
eliminating states’ significant
contribution and interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS in
downwind states is done on an
equitable basis, the EPA proposes to
apply to five additional states the
nationwide findings and determinations
contained in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan as to the original 23 states which
will, if finalized, eliminate these
additional states’ significant
contribution. Thus, in this action the
EPA proposes to apply to these five
states its air quality modeling and
contribution information for the
analytical years 2023 and 2026 at Steps
1 and 2, its analysis of emissions control
opportunities for EGUs and non-EGUs
and determinations of stringency,
including overcontrol analysis, at Step
3, and its implementation programs at
Step 4. The technical materials and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
record-based findings that underlie
these determinations are all contained
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
record. The scope of this rulemaking is
limited to the application of that record
to these five additional states.
Thus, in this document, the EPA is
taking comment only on (a) the EPA’s
proposed conclusions that SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico,
and Tennessee do not contain the
necessary provisions to prohibit
emissions from sources within their
respective states from interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone
standard, (b) the EPA’s proposed
conclusion that the Agency must error
correct its final rules approving SIPs
from Iowa and Kansas to partial
disapprovals, (c) the EPA’s proposed
conclusions that the five states
identified above have emissions that
interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in other states, and (d)
the EPA’s proposed decision to apply
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
emissions-control programs as the FIP
requirements to address these emissions
in these five states.
Additionally, the EPA has updated its
analysis of air quality improvements at
Step 3 and demonstration that there is
no overcontrol resulting from the
inclusion of these five additional states
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
EPA proposes that the 2025 and 2027
ozone seasons represent appropriate
compliance start-dates for these states,
affording sufficient lead time for sources
to plan for compliance from the
standpoint of when this rulemaking will
likely be finalized, which the EPA
currently anticipates will be in the
summer of 2024. These proposed
findings are within the scope of this
rulemaking and open for public
comment.
The EPA is not reopening any
determinations made in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan as to the 23 states
covered in that action. Nor is the EPA
taking comment on any aspect of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, except to
the extent of its application to these five
states. In general, the record for the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule
contains information at each step of the
4-step interstate transport framework
that can be applied to these five states.
Thus, the identification of receptors to
which these five states are linked and
the level of contribution from these
states to those receptors is based on the
same analytical findings using the air
quality modeling and monitoring data
contained in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. In addition, the analysis
underlying the EPA’s determinations at
Step 3 as to EGUs and non-EGUs and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12669
the appropriate degree of emissionscontrol stringency needed to eliminate
significant contribution and interference
with maintenance likewise was
conducted on a region-wide basis, and
in the EPA’s view is reasonably applied
to the emissions sources in these five
states. The emissions-control
requirements were established on a
uniform basis for each particular
industry covered in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, and do not vary by State
(except to the extent that states not
linked in 2026 are not subject to the
requirements that onset in 2026 and
California’s EGUs are not subject to the
EGU trading program). Based on these
findings, these programs should be
extended to these five states. This is
reasonable and indeed necessary to
ensure consistency and equitable
treatment across all states in addressing
the nationwide problem of interstate
ozone pollution for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. See EME Homer City v. EPA,
472 U.S. 572, 519, 524 (2014). This is
also consistent with the EPA’s practice
throughout the history of implementing
the good neighbor provision for other
NAAQS. For instance, using the final
analysis in the original CSAPR
rulemaking, the EPA soon after
conducted rulemaking to include five
additional states in the CSAPR trading
programs. See 76 FR 80760 (December
27, 2011). Thus, for the same reasons,
the EPA proposes to find it reasonable
and appropriate to extend the uniform
set of findings and determinations made
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to
these five additional states for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not aware of
any information with respect to these
states that would justify a deviation
from the same set of findings and
requirements that already have been
made for the 23 states covered in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan with
respect to these same obligations.
Finally, this action also includes
proposed technical corrections to the
existing regulatory text finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
B. Costs and Benefits
Table I.B–1 summarizes the key
results of the cost-benefit analysis that
was prepared for this proposed rule.
Table I.B–1 presents estimates of the
present values (PV) and equivalent
annualized values (EAV), calculated
using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent
as recommended by the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB)
Circular A–4, of the health and climate
benefits, compliance costs, and net
benefits of the proposed rule, in 2016
dollars, discounted to 2023. The
estimated monetized net benefits are the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12670
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
estimated monetized benefits minus the
estimated monetized costs of the
proposed rule. These results present an
incomplete overview of the effects of the
rule because important categories of
benefits were not monetized (e.g.,
ecosystem effects, visibility impairment,
and water quality improvements) and
are therefore not reflected in the costbenefit tables. The EPA anticipates that
taking non-monetized effects into
account would show the proposed rule
to be more net beneficial than this table
reflects.
TABLE I.B–1—ESTIMATED MONETIZED HEALTH AND CLIMATE BENEFITS, COMPLIANCE COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE
PROPOSED RULE, 2025 THROUGH 2044
[Millions 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
3% Discount rate
Present Value:
Health Benefits b ..............................................................................................................
Climate Benefits c ............................................................................................................
Compliance Costs d .........................................................................................................
7% Discount rate
$330 and $1,900 ............
$9.3 ................................
$67 .................................
$210 and $1,200.
$9.3.
$45.
Net Benefits ..............................................................................................................
Equivalent Annualized Value:
Health Benefits ................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits ..............................................................................................................
Compliance Costs ...........................................................................................................
$270 and $1,800 ............
$180 and $1,100.
$22 and $130 .................
$0.6 ................................
$4.5 ................................
$20 and $110.
$0.6.
$4.2.
Net Benefits ..............................................................................................................
$18 and $120 .................
$17 and $110.
a Rows
may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and final Revised CSAPR Update
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), as well as the proposal and final Federal Good Neighbor Plan RIA; to be consistent with those recent actions
we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar year for presenting costs and benefits.
b The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over a 20-year period from 2025 to 2044. Monetized benefits include those
related to public health associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5 concentrations. The health benefits are associated with two alternative estimates of the number of premature deaths and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. Several categories of benefits remain
unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
c Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO ) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent,
2
and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). For presentational purposes in this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–CO2 at a 3-percent discount rate are used in the columns displaying results of other costs and benefits that are discounted at either a 3-percent or 7-percent discount rate.
d The costs presented in this table are consistent with the costs presented in section 3 of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA). To estimate
these annualized costs for EGUs, the EPA uses a conventional and widely accepted approach that applies a capital recovery factor multiplier to
capital investments and adds that to the annual incremental operating expenses. Costs were calculated using a 3.75 percent real discount rate
consistent with the rate used in the Integrated Planning Model’s (IPM) objective function for cost-minimization. For further information on the discount rate use, please see section 3 of the EIA.
As shown in Table I.B–1, the PV of
the monetized health benefits,
associated with reductions in ozone and
PM2.5 of this proposed rule, discounted
at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated
to be about $330 and $1,900 million,
with an EAV of about $22 and $130
million. At a 7-percent discount rate,
the PV of the monetized health benefits
is estimated to be $210 and $1,200
million, with an EAV of about $20 and
$110 million. The PV of the monetized
climate benefits, associated with
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, of this proposed rule,
discounted at a 3-percent discount rate,
is estimated to be about $9.3 million,
with an EAV of about $0.6 million. The
PV of the monetized compliance costs,
discounted at a 3-percent rate, is
estimated to be about $67 million, with
an EAV of about $4.5 million. At a 7percent discount rate, the PV of the
compliance costs is estimated to be
about $45 million, with an EAV of about
$4.2 million.
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This supplemental proposed rule
affects EGU and non-EGU sources, and
regulates the groups identified in Table
II.A–1, along with their North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code.
TABLE II.A–1—REGULATED GROUPS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Industry group
NAICS
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation ...........................................................................................................................................
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ...............................................................................................................................................
Metal Ore Mining .................................................................................................................................................................................
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................................
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................................
Basic Chemical Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................................
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing .....................................................................................................................................
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills .....................................................................................................................................................
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators ..........................................................................................................................................
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this proposed rule. This
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
221112
4862
2122
3273
3311
3272
3251
3241
3221
562213
table lists the types of entities that the
EPA is now aware could potentially be
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
regulated by this proposed rule. Other
types of entities not listed in the table
could also be regulated. To determine
whether a particular entity is regulated
by this proposed rule, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria found in 40 CFR 97.1004 (EGUs)
or 40 CFR 52.40(c), 52.41(b), 52.42(b),
52.43(b), 52.44(b), 52.45(b), and 52.46(b)
(non-EGUs). If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this
proposed rule to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
The EPA evaluated whether interstate
ozone transport emissions from upwind
states are significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any downwind State using the same
4-step interstate transport framework
that was developed in previous ozone
transport rulemakings. In its previous
action, the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA found that sources in 23 states
had obligations to eliminate their
significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with
maintenance in downwind areas.7 In
this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing
to apply that same analysis to find that
emissions reductions are required from
EGU sources in the additional states of
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee and from non-EGU
sources in Arizona. The EPA proposes
to ensure that these NOX emissions
reductions are achieved by issuing FIP
requirements for these five states.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
find that SIP submissions from Arizona,
New Mexico, and Tennessee lack
adequate provisions to ensure sources
and other emissions activity in their
states are not interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. The EPA is also
proposing to error correct its previous
actions on SIP submissions from Iowa
and Kansas to partial disapprovals for
the same reason.8
In this same action, the EPA proposes
FIP requirements for these five states.
The EPA is proposing to incorporate
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee into the existing CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program established in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, beginning in the 2025
ozone season. EGUs in states not
currently covered by any CSAPR trading
program for seasonal NOX emissions—
Arizona and New Mexico—will be
7 88
FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR
19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
8 87
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
added to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program under this
rule. EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee will transition from the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program. The EPA is establishing a
control stringency level reflecting
optimization of existing postcombustion controls and installation of
state-of-the-art combustion controls on
certain covered EGU sources in the
emissions budgets beginning in the 2025
ozone season. In addition, for Arizona,
the EPA is establishing a control
stringency level reflecting installation of
new Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
or Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) controls on certain covered EGU
sources in its emissions budgets
beginning with the 2027 ozone season.
Consistent with the emissions
limitations established for non-EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, this supplemental action proposes
to establish emissions limitations for
new and existing non-EGU sources in
Arizona beginning with the 2027 ozone
season. The Federal Good Neighbor Plan
established control requirements for the
following unit types in non-EGU
industries: RICE in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron
and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and
Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers in
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and
combustors and incinerators in Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators. See
Table II.A–1 in this document for a list
of NAICS codes for the relevant
industries.
In accordance with the requirements
of the good neighbor provision, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this proposed
rule reduces the transport of ozone and
ozone precursors from emissions in
upwind states to downwind areas to
protect human health and the
environment from negative health
impacts associated with acute and
chronic exposure to ozone. Ozone
exposure is also associated with
negative effects on ecosystems.
Additional information on the air
quality issues addressed by this
proposed rule is included in section IX.
of this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12671
C. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
The statutory authority for this
proposed action is provided by the CAA
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the
CAA provide the primary statutory
underpinnings for this action. The most
relevant portions of CAA section 110 are
subsections 110(a)(1), 110(a)(2)
(including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)), 110(k)(2),
110(k)(3), 110(k)(6), and 110(c)(1).
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides that
states must make SIP submissions
‘‘within 3 years (or such shorter period
as the Administrator may prescribe)
after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or
any revision thereof),’’ and that these
SIP submissions are to provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.9 The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
the EPA taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised
NAAQS.10
The EPA has historically referred to
SIP submissions made for the purpose
of satisfying the applicable requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ or ‘‘iSIP’’
submissions.’’ CAA section 110(a)(1)
addresses the timing and general
requirements for iSIP submissions, and
CAA section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required content
of these submissions.11 It includes a list
of specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ must address, including the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision.12
CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the
Administrator to promulgate a FIP at
any time within 2 years after the
Administrator: (1) finds that a State has
failed to make a required SIP
submission; (2) finds a SIP submission
to be incomplete pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(1)(C); or (3) disapproves
a SIP submission. This obligation
applies unless the State corrects the
deficiency through a SIP revision that
9 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.,
572 U.S. 489, 509–10 (2014).
11 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
12 The EPA’s general approach to infrastructure
SIP submissions is explained in greater detail in
individual documents acting or proposing to act on
State infrastructure SIP submissions and in
guidance. See, e.g., Memorandum from Stephen D.
Page on Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (September
13, 2013).
10 See
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12672
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
the Administrator approves before the
FIP is promulgated.13
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also
known as the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provision, provides the primary basis
for this proposed action.14 It requires
that each State’s SIP include provisions
sufficient to ‘‘prohibit[ ], consistent with
the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting
any air pollutant in amounts which
will—(I) contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State with
respect to any [NAAQS].’’ 15 The EPA
often refers to the emissions reduction
requirements under this provision as
‘‘good neighbor obligations’’ and
submissions addressing these
requirements as ‘‘good neighbor SIPs.’’
Once the EPA promulgates a NAAQS,
the EPA must designate areas as being
in ‘‘attainment’’ or ‘‘nonattainment’’ of
the NAAQS, or ‘‘unclassifiable.’’ CAA
section 107(d).16 For ozone,
nonattainment is further split into five
classifications based on the severity of
the violation—Marginal, Moderate,
Serious, Severe, or Extreme. Higher
classifications provide states with
progressively more time to attain while
imposing progressively more stringent
control requirements. See CAA sections
181, 182.17 In general, states with
nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or higher must submit plans
to the EPA to bring these areas into
attainment according to the statutory
schedule in CAA section 182.18 If an
area fails to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date associated with its
classification, it is ‘‘bumped up’’ to the
next classification, per the requirements
in CAA section 181(b).19
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the
Administrator the general authority to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out functions under
the Act.20 Pursuant to this section, the
EPA has authority to clarify the
applicability of CAA requirements and
undertake other rulemaking action as
necessary to implement CAA
requirements. CAA section 301 affords
the Agency any additional authority that
may be needed to make certain other
changes to its regulations under 40 CFR
parts 52 and 97 to effectuate the
purposes of the Act. Such changes are
13 42
14 42
U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
15 Id.
16 42
U.S.C. 7407(d).
U.S.C. 7511, 7511a.
18 42 U.S.C. 7511a.
19 42 U.S.C. 7511(b).
20 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
17 42
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
discussed in section X. of this
document.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the
Administrator authority, without any
further submission from a state, to
revise certain prior actions, including
actions to approve SIP submissions,
upon determining that those actions
were in error.21 As discussed further in
section V.A. of this document, the EPA
proposes to make error corrections
under CAA section 110(k)(6) with
respect to its prior approvals of the 2015
ozone transport SIP submissions from
the States of Iowa and Kansas.
Tribes are not required to submit State
implementation plans. However, as
explained in the EPA’s regulations
outlining Tribal CAA authority, the EPA
is authorized to promulgate FIPs for
Indian country as necessary or
appropriate to protect air quality if a
Tribe does not submit, and obtain the
EPA’s approval of, an implementation
plan. See 40 CFR 49.11(a); see also CAA
section 301(d)(4).22 In this action, the
EPA proposes an ‘‘appropriate or
necessary’’ finding under CAA section
301(d) and proposes Tribal FIP(s) as
necessary to implement the relevant
requirements. This is further discussed
in section V.B. of this document.
D. Severability
The EPA regards this proposal as a
complete remedy for the covered states,
which will as expeditiously as
practicable implement good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
consistent with the requirements of the
Act. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 896, 911–12 (D.C. Cir. 2008);
Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313–
20 (D.C. Cir. 2019); Maryland v. EPA,
958 F.3d 1185, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2020);
New York v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214, 1226
(D.C. Cir. 2020); New York v. EPA, 781
Fed. App’x 4, 7–8 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (all
holding that the EPA must address good
neighbor obligations as expeditiously as
practicable and by no later than the next
applicable attainment date). Yet the EPA
proposes that should a court find any
discrete aspect of this action, if
finalized, to be invalid, the Agency
believes that, like the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the remaining aspects of
this proposed rule can and should
continue to be implemented to the
extent possible, consistent with law. See
88 FR 36693. In particular, this proposal
would disapprove SIP submissions and
promulgate a FIP for each covered state
(and, pursuant to CAA section 301(d),
for each area of tribal jurisdiction within
the geographic boundaries of those
21 42
22 42
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
U.S.C. 7410(k)(6).
U.S.C. 7601(d)(4).
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
states). Should any jurisdiction-specific
aspect of the rule, once finalized be
found invalid, the EPA views this rule,
if finalized as proposed, as severable
along those state and/or tribal
jurisdictional lines, such that the
proposed rule could continue to be
implemented as to any remaining
jurisdictions. This action proposes
discrete emissions control requirements
for the power sector and for each of nine
other industries. Should any industryspecific aspect of the proposed rule be
found invalid once final, the EPA views
this rule as proposed as severable as
between the different industries and
different types of emissions control
requirements. This is not intended to be
an exhaustive list of the ways in which
the proposed rule may be severable. In
the event any part of the rule, if
finalized, is found invalid, our intention
is that the remaining portions should
continue to be implemented consistent
with any judicial ruling.23
The EPA’s conclusion that this
proposed rule, upon finalization, is
severable also reflects the important
public health and environmental
benefits of this rulemaking in
eliminating significant contribution and
to ensure to the greatest extent possible
the ability of both upwind states and
downwind states and other relevant
stakeholders to be able to rely on this
rule at final in their planning. Cf.
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 336–37 (‘‘As a
general rule, we do not vacate
regulations when doing so would risk
significant harm to the public health or
the environment.’’); North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (noting the need to preserve
public health benefits); EME Homer City
v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 132 (D.C. Cir.
2015) (noting the need to avoid
disruption to emissions trading market
that had developed).
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–
0402, at https://www.regulations.gov.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
23 In a declaration dated October 28, 2023, and
filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in State of Ohio
et al. v. EPA, No. 23A349, the Agency, through
Joseph Goffman, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator performing delegated duties of
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and
Radiation, explained in greater detail why it makes
sense as both a technical and legal matter that the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan can continue to be
implemented in each covered state despite
preliminary stays of the Plan in other states. This
same reasoning applies with full force with respect
to the additional states that are proposed for
inclusion in these programs in this action. The
declaration is included in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
edited or removed from the docket. The
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit to
the EPA’s docket at https://
www.regulations.gov any information
you consider to be CBI, Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). Please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets for additional
submission methods; the full EPA
public comment policy; information
about CBI, PBI, or multimedia
submissions; and general guidance on
making effective comments.
2. Participation in Virtual Public
Hearing
The EPA will begin pre-registering
speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. To register to speak at
the virtual hearing, please use the
online registration form available at
https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015ozone-naaqs or contact Ms. Pamela
Long at (919) 541–0641 and/or
long.pam@epa.gov to register to speak at
the virtual hearing. The last day to preregister to speak at the hearing will be
3 working days before the hearing. On
[last working day before the hearing],
the EPA will post a general agenda for
the hearing that will list pre-registered
speakers in approximate order at:
https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015ozone-naaqs.
The EPA will make every effort to
follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing;
however, please plan for the hearings to
run either ahead of schedule or behind
schedule. Additionally, requests to
speak will be taken the day of the
hearing at the hearing registration desk.
The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive
and register, although preferences on
speaking times may not be able to be
fulfilled. Each commenter will have 3
minutes to provide oral testimony. The
EPA encourages commenters to provide
the EPA with a copy of their oral
testimony electronically by emailing it
to Ms. Pamela Long. The EPA also
recommends submitting the text of your
oral comments as written comments to
the rulemaking docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
The EPA may ask clarifying questions
during the oral presentations but will
not respond to the presentations at that
time. Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the
comment period will be considered
with the same weight as oral comments
and supporting information presented at
the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to
any aspect of the hearing are posted
online at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/
csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. While the EPA
expects the hearing to go forward as set
forth above, please monitor our website
or contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919)
541–0641 and/or long.pam@epa.gov to
determine if there are any updates. The
EPA does not intend to publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing updates.
The EPA will not provide audiovisual
equipment for presentations unless the
Agency receives special requests in
advance. Commenters should notify Ms.
Pamela Long when they pre-register to
speak that they will need specific
equipment. If you require the services of
an interpreter or special
accommodations such as audio
description, please pre-register for the
hearing with Ms. Pamela Long and
describe your needs by [DATE 1 WEEK
BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING
DATE]. The EPA may not be able to
arrange accommodations without
advance notice.
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA
promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS),
lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts
per million (ppm) for the 8-hour
standard.24 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit, within 3 years
after promulgation of a new or revised
standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2).25 One of these applicable
requirements is found in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as
the ‘‘good neighbor’’ or ‘‘interstate
transport’’ provision, which generally
requires that SIPs contain adequate
24 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone, Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
Although the level of the standard is specified in
the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are also
described in ppb. For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
25 SIP submissions that are intended to meet the
applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA are often referred to as
infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements
under CAA section 110(a)(2) are referred to as
infrastructure requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12673
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions
activities from having certain adverse
air quality effects on other states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There
are two so-called ‘‘prongs’’ within CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS must contain
adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the State from emitting
air pollutants in amounts that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
State (Prong 1) or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
State (Prong 2). The EPA and states
must give independent significance to
Prong 1 and Prong 2 when evaluating
downwind air quality problems under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).26
On January 31, 2023, the EPA
finalized disapproval of 19 SIP
submissions and partially approved and
partially disapproved two SIP
submissions addressing the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA’s evaluation for those
actions applied uniform, nationwide
analytical methods, policy judgments,
and interpretation with respect to the
same CAA obligations, i.e.,
implementation of good neighbor
requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS for states across the country. To
maintain consistency across all states in
light of the final analytical conclusions
reached in that action and the separate
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA
indicated it would take subsequent
action on remaining SIP submissions
addressing interstate transport
obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.27 The EPA also indicated it
would address previous final actions on
SIP submissions for states where the
EPA’s final analysis suggested the State
may be significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance. In the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, finalized on March 15,
2023, the EPA indicated it would
address these and any outstanding FIP
obligations in a future action for these
states, which included the five states
included here and Wyoming.28 The EPA
finalized its approval of the SIP
submission from Wyoming on December
13, 2023.29 This action proposes to
26 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
11 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
27 88 FR 36656.
28 88 FR 36654 at 36656.
29 See Air Plan Approval; Wyoming; Interstate
Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88
FR 54998 (August 14, 2023). The EPA signed the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
Continued
16FEP3
12674
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
address the five additional remaining
SIP submissions and FIP obligations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. Description of the EPA’s 4-Step
Interstate Transport Regulatory Process
For decades, when evaluating SIPs
and formulating FIPs, EPA has
consistently utilized the 4-step
interstate transport framework (or 4-step
framework), which was developed to
give meaning to the critical statutory
terms in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and to provide a reasonable organization
to the analysis of the complex air
quality challenge of interstate ozone
transport. The EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to prior NAAQS using the 4-step
framework in several regulatory actions,
including the CSAPR, which addressed
interstate transport with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards,30 the CSAPR Update 31 and
the Revised CSAPR Update, both of
which addressed the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.32 For the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
the EPA uses this framework in
evaluating SIP submissions (while
considering any alternative approaches
states may propose) and applied this
framework in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.33
Shaped through the years by input
from State air agencies 34 and other
stakeholders on the EPA’s prior
interstate transport rulemakings and SIP
submission actions,35 as well as a
number of court decisions, the EPA has
developed and used the 4-step interstate
transport framework to evaluate State’s
obligations to eliminate interstate
final approval on December 13, 2023. 88 FR 87720
(December 19, 2023).
30 See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and
Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
31 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016).
32 In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded the CSAPR Update to the extent it failed
to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must
come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin v.
EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The
Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), responded
to the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin
and the vacatur of a separate rule, the ‘‘CSAPR
Close-Out,’’ 83 FR 65878 (December 21, 2018), in
New York v. EPA, 781 F. App’x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
33 See 88 FR at 9338; 88 FR at 36671.
34 See 63 FR 57356, 57361 (October 27, 1998).
35 In addition to CSAPR rulemakings, other
regional rulemakings addressing ozone transport
include the ‘‘NOX SIP Call,’’ 63 FR 57356 (October
27, 1998), and the ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule’’
(CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
transport emissions under the interstate
transport provision for the ozone
NAAQS: (1) identify monitoring sites
that are projected to have problems
attaining and/or maintaining the
NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptors); (2) identify
states that impact those air quality
problems in other (i.e., downwind)
states sufficiently such that the states
are considered to ‘‘contribute’’ (i.e., are
considered ‘‘linked’’) to those receptors
and whose emissions therefore warrant
further review and analysis; (3) identify
the emissions reductions necessary (if
any), applying a multifactor analysis, to
eliminate each linked upwind State’s
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the
locations identified in Step 1; and (4)
adopt permanent and enforceable
measures needed to achieve those
emissions reductions. EPA does not
require states to use the 4-step
framework in good neighbor SIP
submissions, but it is a useful
organizational tool that has been upheld
by the Supreme Court as ‘‘permissible,
workable, and equitable.’’ EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S.
489, 524 (2014).
The general steps of this framework
allow for some methodological
variation, and this can be seen in the
evolution of the EPA’s analytic process
across its prior rulemakings. This also
means states have some flexibility in
developing analytic methods within this
framework (and may also attempt to
justify an alternative framework
altogether). The four steps of the
framework provide a reasonable
organization to the analysis of the
complex air quality challenge of
interstate ozone transport. As discussed
further throughout this document, the
EPA has organized its evaluation of
good neighbor obligations around this
analytical framework (including the
specific methodologies within each step
as evolved over the course of the CSAPR
rulemakings since 2011). Where states
presented alternative approaches either
to the EPA’s methodological approaches
within the framework, or organized
their analysis in some manner that
differed from it entirely, the EPA has
evaluated those analyses on their merits
to determine compliance with the good
neighbor obligation or, in some cases,
identified why even if those approaches
were acceptable, the State still does not
meet the good neighbor requirement and
therefore does not have an approvable
SIP submission as a whole.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. The EPA’s Ozone Transport Modeling
The EPA has performed nationwide
air quality modeling to project ozone
design values that are used in
combination with measured data to
identify nonattainment and
maintenance receptors at Step 1. To
quantify the contribution of emissions
from individual upwind states on 2023
and 2026 ozone design values for the
identified downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptors at Step 2, the
EPA has performed nationwide, statelevel ozone source apportionment
modeling for 2023 and 2026. The source
apportionment modeling provides
contributions to ozone at receptors from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic
NOX and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in individual upwind states. In
this action, the EPA is proposing to
apply the air quality modeling and
contribution results that were derived
using the 2016v3 modeling and
monitoring data that informed the EPA’s
Step 1 and Step 2 determinations in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan—inclusive
of the approach for identifying certain
addition sites as violating-monitor
maintenance-only receptors based on
certified monitoring data and regulatory
design values for 2021 and 2022. This
section provides an overview of the
modeling developments that resulted in
those analytical conclusions, which are
used here to make good neighbor
determinations for these five additional
states.
The EPA released several documents
containing projected ozone design
values, contributions, and information
relevant to air agencies for evaluation of
interstate transport with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6,
2017, the EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) in which the
Agency requested comment on
preliminary interstate ozone transport
data including projected ozone design
values and interstate contributions for
2023 using a 2011 base year platform.36
In the NODA, the EPA used the year
2023 as the analytic year for this
preliminary modeling because this year
aligns with the expected attainment year
for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.37 On
October 27, 2017, the EPA released a
memorandum (October 2017
memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which
incorporated changes made in response
36 See Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Preliminary Interstate Ozone
Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
37 82 FR at 1735.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
to comments on the NODA, and was
intended to provide information to
assist states’ efforts to develop SIP
submissions to address interstate
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.38
On March 27, 2018, the EPA issued a
memorandum (March 2018
memorandum) noting that the same
2023 modeling data released in the
October 2017 memorandum could also
be useful for identifying potential
downwind air quality problems with
respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at
Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.39 The March 2018
memorandum also included the then
newly available contribution modeling
data for 2023 to assist states in
evaluating their impact on potential
downwind air quality problems for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS under Step
2 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.40 The EPA subsequently
issued two more memoranda in August
and October 2018, providing additional
information to states developing
interstate transport SIP submissions for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution
thresholds that may be appropriate to
apply in Step 2 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework, and considerations
for identifying downwind areas that
may have problems maintaining the
standard at Step 1 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.41
Following the release of the modeling
data shared in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA performed
38 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in
docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
39 See Information on the Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018 (‘‘March 2018
memorandum’’), available in docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
40 The March 2018 memorandum, however,
provided, ‘‘While the information in this
memorandum and the associated air quality
analysis data could be used to inform the
development of these SIPs, the information is not
a final determination regarding states’ obligations
under the good neighbor provision. Any such
determination would be made through notice-andcomment rulemaking.’’
41 See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for
Use in Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018 (‘‘August
2018 memorandum’’), and Considerations for
Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport
State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, October 19, 2018, available in docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
updated modeling using a 2016 base
year emissions modeling platform (i.e.,
2016 Version 1 Emissions Platform
Modeling, or ‘‘2016v1’’). This emissions
platform was developed under the EPA/
Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project.42 This
collaborative project was a multi-year
joint effort by the EPA, MJOs, and states
to develop a new, more recent emissions
platform for use by the EPA and states
in regulatory modeling as an
improvement over the dated 2011-based
platform that the EPA had used to
project ozone design values and
contribution data provided in the 2017
and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used
the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone
design values and contributions for
2023. On October 30, 2020, in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
released and accepted public comment
on 2023 modeling that used the 2016v1
emissions platform.43 Although the
Revised CSAPR Update addressed
transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
the projected design values and
contributions from the 2016v1 platform
were also useful for identifying
downwind ozone problems and linkages
with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.44
Following the final Revised CSAPR
Update, the EPA made further updates
to the 2016-based emissions platform to
include updated onroad mobile
emissions from Version 3 of the EPA’s
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) model (MOVES3)45 and
updated emissions projections for EGUs
that reflected the emissions reductions
from the Revised CSAPR Update, recent
information on plant closures, and other
inventory improvements. The EPA
published these emissions inventories
on its website in September of 2021 and
invited initial feedback from states and
other interested stakeholders.46 The
construct of the updated emissions
platform, (i.e., 2016 Version 2 Emissions
Platform Modeling, or ‘‘2016v2’’), is
42 The results of this modeling, as well as the
underlying modeling files, are included in docket
ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663. The 2016v1
emissions modeling technical support document is
available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2020–
0272–0187. Both dockets are available at https://
www.regulations.gov.
43 See 85 FR 68964, 68981.
44 See the Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document for the Final Revised Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update, included in the
Headquarters docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0663.
45 Additional details and documentation related
to the MOVES3 model can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicleemission-simulator-moves.
46 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/
2016v2-platform.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12675
described in the ‘‘Technical Support
Document (TSD): Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2
North American Emissions Modeling
Platform,’’ hereafter known as the
2016v2 Emissions Modeling TSD, and is
included in Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0663. The EPA performed air
quality modeling using the 2016v2
emissions to provide projections of
ozone design values and contributions
in 2023 and 2026 that reflect the effects
on air quality of the 2016v2 emissions
platform. The EPA used the results of
the 2016v2 modeling to inform
proposed and final actions on 2015
ozone NAAQS good neighbor
obligations for Iowa and Kansas.47
The EPA also used the 2016v2
emissions inventories and modeling to
support proposed actions for several
states, including the EPA’s previous
proposals on Arizona and Tennesse, as
well as the proposed Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. In response to comments
received for these rulemakings, the EPA
updated the 2016v2 inventories and
model design to construct another
emissions platform (i.e., 2016 Version 3
Emissions Platform Modeling, or
‘‘2016v3’’), which was used to update
the air quality modeling. The EPA used
this updated modeling to inform a final
rulemaking taking final action on 21
interstate transport SIP submissions for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS and to inform
the final Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.48 49 In its final actions on both SIP
disapprovals, and the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the EPA provided an
explanation of the adjustments and
other modifications made to construct
the 2016v3 platform. Details on the
2016v3 air quality modeling and the
methods for projecting design values
and determining contributions in 2023
and 2026 based on this platform are
described in the TSD titled ‘‘Air Quality
47 The EPA was obligated by consent-decree
deadline to finalize its action for Iowa and Kansas
by April 30, 2022, and was unable to consider or
incorporate the later comments received on the
2016v2 modeling that were used to inform the
2016v3 modeling informing the final Disapproval
action and final Federal Good Neighbor Plan in
early 2023.
48 ‘‘Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of
Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 88 FR 9336
(February 13, 2023), and ‘‘Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,’’ 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
49 In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA
identified and finalized FIPs for 23 states. This
included the 21 states included in the SIP
Disapproval action, as well as Pennsylvania and
Virginia. The EPA had an obligation to finalize a
FIP for these two states (and Utah) following the
EPA’s finding of a failure to submit a SIP from these
two states (84 FR 66612). The EPA has not since
received SIP submissions from Pennsylvania or
Virginia.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12676
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Modeling Final Rule TSD—2015 Ozone
NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,’’ hereafter
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan
AQM TSD.50 Additional details related
to the 2016v3 emissions platform are
located in the TSD titled ‘‘Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the 2016v3
North American Emissions Modeling
Platform,’’ hereafter known as the
2016v3 Emissions Modeling TSD,
included in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0668.51
In this proposed action, the EPA
primarily relies on modeling based on
the 2016v3 emissions platform coupled
with measured data in Steps 1 and 2 of
the 4-step interstate transport
framework, which will generally be
referenced within this action as the
‘‘2016v3 modeling’’ for 2023 and 2026.
As discussed further in section III.D.2.
of this document, the EPA is also
applying its findings regarding
violating-monitor maintenance-only
receptors in 2023 using certified
monitoring data and regulatory design
values for 2021 and 2022. The EPA used
the 2016v3 modeling to calculate
contributions to these receptors. By
again using this same set of monitoring
data and updated modeling results, the
EPA is using the most current and
technically appropriate information for
this proposed rulemaking and also
ensuring that its regulatory
determinations for these remaining
states are wholly consistent with the
findings informing the EPA’s final
determinations for all of the states
included in the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. In this proposed action,
the EPA is accepting public comment on
the 2016v3 modeling and the violatingmonitor methodology, solely as they
relate to Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee interstate
transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA is not reopening the
modeling in relation to any other State
or regulatory action. Any comments
received on the modeling that are not
relevant to the evaluation of these states’
interstate transport obligations will be
treated as beyond the scope of this
action.
States may have chosen to rely on the
results of prior versions of EPA’s
modeling and/or alternative modeling
performed by states or MJOs to evaluate
downwind air quality problems and
contributions as part of their SIP
submissions. The EPA is not proposing
to disapprove any State’s submission in
50 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668.
51 2016v3 Emissions Modeling TSD in Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0668.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
this action based on the State’s choice
of modeling, but, consistent with its
disapproval action, based on the EPA’s
evaluation of the entire record, which
aims to factually determine whether
states are projected to significantly
contribute to or interfere with
maintenance in the 2023 analytical year.
See 88 FR at 9343. In section IV.B. of
this document, the EPA evaluates how
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee used air quality
modeling information in their SIP
submissions.
A summary of the methodology and
results of the 2016v3 modeling for 2023
and 2026, along with the application of
the EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
methodology for identifying receptors
and upwind states that contribute to
those receptors can be found in the
Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
That document also contains
explanations as to how current
measured ozone levels based on data for
2021 and 2022 at other monitoring sites
(i.e., monitoring sites that are not
projected to be receptors in 2023 based
on air quality modeling) confirm the
likely continuation of elevated ozone
levels in 2023 at these locations. This
analysis shows that each of the five
states in this action are linked at or
above (i.e., contributing equal to or more
than) 1 percent of the NAAQS to one or
more of these monitors. Kansas and
Tennessee are linked only to violatingmonitor receptors, and not to modelingbased receptors. In recognition that the
EPA had not proposed these sites as
receptors, linkages to such receptors
were used only in a ‘‘confirmatory’’ way
to inform the final Disapproval action
and Good Neighbor Plan (i.e., to
reinforce linkage findings as to states
that were otherwise linked to modelingbased receptors). In this proposed
action, the EPA finds the existence of
such linkages is sufficient to establish
that a State contributes to such receptors
and is thus an adequate basis on which
to propose disapproval of the SIP
submissions from Kansas and Tennesse.
D. The EPA’s Approach To Evaluating
Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
The EPA has applied a consistent set
of policy judgments across all states for
purposes of evaluating interstate
transport obligations and the
approvability of interstate transport SIP
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
proposes to continue to do so in this
action. These policy judgments conform
with relevant case law and past Agency
practice as reflected in the CSAPR and
related rulemakings. Employing a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
nationally consistent approach is
particularly important in the context of
interstate ozone transport, which is a
regional-scale pollution problem
characterized by the collective
contribution from many upwind states
to geographically dispersed monitors
over distances of hundreds of miles.
Effective policy solutions to the problem
of interstate ozone transport going back
to the NOX SIP Call have necessitated
the application of a uniform framework
of policy judgments to ensure an
‘‘efficient and equitable’’ approach. See
EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA,
572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014).
In the March, August, and October
2018 memoranda, the EPA recognized
that states may be able to establish
alternative approaches to addressing
their interstate transport obligations for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS that vary from
a nationally uniform framework. The
EPA emphasized in these memoranda,
however, that such alternative
approaches must be technically justified
and appropriate in light of the facts and
circumstances of each particular State’s
SIP submission. In general, the EPA
continues to believe that deviation from
a nationally consistent approach to
ozone transport must have a welldocumented technical basis that is
consistent with CAA obligations and
relevant case law. Where states
submitted SIP submissions that rely on
any such potential concepts as the EPA
or others may have identified or
suggested in the past, the EPA will
evaluate whether the State adequately
justified the technical and legal basis for
doing so.
The EPA notes that certain potential
concepts included in an attachment to
the March 2018 memorandum require
unique consideration, and these ideas
do not constitute Agency guidance with
respect to interstate transport
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Attachment A to the March 2018
memorandum identified a ‘‘Preliminary
List of Potential Flexibilities’’ that could
potentially inform SIP development.
However, the EPA made clear in both
the March 2018 memorandum 52 and in
Attachment A that the list of ideas was
not endorsed by the Agency but rather
‘‘comments provided in various forums’’
on which the EPA sought ‘‘feedback
from interested stakeholders.’’ 53
Further, Attachment A stated, ‘‘EPA is
not at this time making any
determination that the ideas discussed
below are consistent with the
requirements of the CAA, nor are we
specifically recommending that states
52 March
53 Id.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
2018 memorandum, Attachment A.
at A–1.
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
use these approaches.’’ 54 Attachment A
to the March 2018 memorandum,
therefore, does not constitute Agency
guidance, but was intended to generate
further discussion around potential
approaches to addressing ozone
transport among interested stakeholders.
To the extent states sought to develop or
rely on one or more of these ideas in
support of their SIP submissions, the
EPA will thoroughly review the
technical and legal justifications for
doing so.
The remainder of this section
describes the EPA’s analytic framework
and interpretation of the critical terms
of the good neighbor provision with
respect to analytic year, definition of
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors, selection of contribution
threshold, and multifactor control
strategy assessment.
1. Selection of Analytic Years
In this section, the EPA describes its
process for selecting analytic years for
air quality modeling and analyses
performed to identify nonattainment
and maintenance receptors and identify
upwind State linkages. The EPA is
retaining the 2023 and 2026 analytical
years used to inform the obligations of
the 23 states included in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, to ensure
consistency and equitable treatment of
all states. In the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA evaluated air quality to
identify receptors at Step 1 and evaluate
interstate contributions at Step 2 for two
analytic years: 2023 and 2026.55 These
years are the last full ozone seasons
before the Moderate and Serious area
attainment dates for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (ozone seasons for purposes of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan run
each year from May 1–September 30,
see 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1) and 40 CFR
52.40(c)(1)). To demonstrate attainment
by these deadlines, downwind states
would be required to rely on design
values calculated using ozone data from
2021 through 2023 and 2024 through
2026, respectively. Areas that do not
attain by the deadline may be ‘‘bumped
up’’ to a higher nonattainment
classification level per CAA sections
181 and 182, thereby incurring
additional ongoing obligations. Thus, in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
consistent with each of its prior good
neighbor rulemakings, the EPA focused
54 Id.
55 While the 2023 analytic year provides a
sufficient basis to act on the SIP submissions in this
action, consistent with the EPA’s Disapproval
action, see 88 FR 9340–41, the EPA uses the 2026
analytic year to ensure a complete Step 3 analysis
in the context of developing the FIP, see 88 FR
36694.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
its analysis on the last full ozone
seasons before the attainment dates (i.e.,
2023 and 2026).
The Agency recognizes that in
applying its 2023 and 2026 analytics to
inform this action, it may be perceived
as acting inconsistently with a
longstanding policy of always
considering a future analytic year from
the standpoint of the timing of its
rulemaking action. However, the EPA
determined that several important,
overriding considerations warrant
adopting this approach in this
supplemental rulemaking. As explained
in section I.A. of this document, it is
imperative to maintain a consistent set
of analytical and policy determinations
across all states in the context of
addressing the interstate ozone problem;
the EPA is doing so by using a
consistent set of data and analytical
conclusions between the states included
in this action and those for which the
EPA has already rendered final
determinations in the final SIP
Disapproval action and the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. Were the EPA to
conduct a new set of air quality analyses
tied to years beyond 2023 or 2026, the
EPA would separately evaluate these
states using different data than that
which informed and defined the
obligations of all other states, solely as
a result of the timing of the EPA’s action
on these states. Where the need for
parity among states or other
jurisdictions in like circumstances
warrants it, courts have recognized that
it may be appropriate for agencies like
the EPA to rely on a unified dataset to
ensure consistency in treatment. See Bd.
County Commissioners of Weld County
v. EPA, 72 F.4th 284, 290 (D.C. Cir.
2023) (upholding as reasonable the
EPA’s determination that ‘‘greater parity
among counties and faster turnaround [ ]
make the original data a better choice
than partial updating’’). The importance
of use of a single, already-developed
dataset focused on the years 2023 and
2026 to define good neighbor
obligations for all states to ensure
consistency among states and for ‘‘faster
turnaround’’ to complete this
supplemental rulemaking is, in the
EPA’s judgment, sufficiently compelling
to justify this approach here.
The EPA’s use of a common and
unified dataset here is consistent with
all of its past good neighbor
rulemakings, including those in which
the EPA conducted updated air quality
analysis to address remaining good
neighbor obligations. In both the CSAPR
Update and the Revised CSAPR Update,
the EPA took action to address good
neighbor FIP actions that had been
remanded to the EPA. In each case, the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12677
EPA addressed the remanded
obligations for all of the covered states
through analysis of a new analytic year.
This ensured consistency among all of
the states where there were good
neighbor obligations that needed to be
addressed. See, e.g., 86 FR 23067–68
(discussing error correction for
Kentucky ‘‘consistent with EPA’s
methodology to address the other 20
states’’ included in that action). Further,
the EPA already had updated modeling
at hand that could inform its new
action. See, e.g., id. at 23074, 23079–80.
Likewise, where all of a group of states’
obligations were being addressed on
remand from an action that had not
been vacated (as was the case in both
the CSAPR Update and the Revised
CSAPR Update), it was important to
reflect the emissions reductions and air
quality improvements that were already
being achieved from the non-vacated
action in the baseline. See, e.g., id. at
23075. In this case, the EPA is not reevaluating a group of states but
addressing additional states in a manner
that ensures consistent treatment with
the first set of states. This circumstance
is analogous to the supplemental
rulemaking the EPA undertook soon
following the original CSAPR
rulemaking to add several states to those
programs based on the same data and
analysis that informed the CSAPR. See
76 FR 80760 (December 27, 2011). In the
EPA’s judgment, the relevant
considerations therefore weigh in favor
of using the currently available air
quality data that has already been used
to define other states’ obligations.
In addition, like the CSAPR
supplemental rulemaking, the timing of
this action is the result of procedural
happenstance, rather than a substantive
difference in the circumstances of any of
these five states. This timing was driven
by the nature of the EPA’s prior
proposed or final actions, or lack of
such actions, that had been taken at the
time the EPA completed its final,
updated air quality analysis informing
its final determinations on other states’
obligations in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan (explained further in
section III.C. of this document). This
final analysis of obligations based on
2023 and 2026 analytics necessitated
the EPA’s reevaluation of its proposals
on Arizona and Tennessee’s SIP
submissions, as well as the EPA’s past
final actions on Iowa and Kansas’
SIPs.56 In these circumstances, given the
potential change in the status of these
states, the EPA also found it would be
appropriate to provide an opportunity
56 The EPA has not taken any previous proposed
or final action on New Mexico’s SIP submission.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12678
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
for public comment on the EPA’s
changed basis for action.
Further, shifting the analysis of good
neighbor obligations forward to a new
analytic year for these five states would
not be relevant to a proper definition of
these good neighbor obligations, and
switching the analytic year(s) for just
these five states could create an
inequitable result both amongst other
upwind states and between these five
states and the downwind states to
which they are linked. Creating a
different set of data for a later year for
these states, when the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan has already defined
requirements and is in effect for certain
other states, would introduce an
interdependency, or ‘‘who goes first,’’
problem that the EPA’s framework
generally is designed to avoid. See Ky.
Energy & Env’t Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23–
3605 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023), Slip Op. at
8. The EPA is not reopening the
determinations made for the 23 upwind
states covered in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, and 2023 and 2026 were
appropriately selected as the analytical
years to inform the EPA’s evaluation of
these states. See 88 FR at 36694–96.
These years are associated with the
statutory attainment schedule faced by
the downwind states with designated
nonattainment areas where the
identified receptors are located. It is at
the least reasonable, therefore, to align
these five states’ evaluation with the
remainder of the states in the country,
which will maintain parity among all
jurisdictions, which is preferable to only
‘‘partially updating’’ the analysis in the
case of a handful of states. Weld County,
72 F.4th at 290. This is a particularly
important consideration in
implementing the good neighbor
provision for ozone. The EPA must
ensure each state is held to the
elimination of its own significant
contribution. See North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 920–21 (D.C. Cir.
2008). And interstate ozone pollution
presents a ‘‘collective contribution’’
problem in which the EPA must allocate
a fair share of responsibility among
sources across multiple states. See
Maryland v. EPA, 1185 F.3d at 120304
(D.C. Cir. 2020); id. at 1204 (‘‘So long as
upwind sources significantly contribute
to [a state’s] nonattainment at its 2021
[Marginal] attainment deadline, they
violate the Good Neighbor Provision.’’).
As the Maryland court recognized, the
consequences on downwind
nonattainment areas from failure to
obtain relief from upwind significant
contribution are not just continuing
poor air quality, but also regulatory
requirements that apply for years into
the future, including ‘‘a requirement to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
provide for annual emissions reductions
in SIPs.’’ Id. (citing CAA section 182(b)).
The relief that can be afforded through
addressing the upwind states’
significant contribution, as proposed in
this action, will therefore potentially
lessen regulatory burdens on downwind
states that Congress commanded they
are not to bear alone. See 88 FR 36840
(discussing the history of downwind
states’ and the EPA’s reliance on
emissions reductions achieved through
prior good neighbor rules in, for
example, redesignation actions and
maintenance plans); cf. Maryland, 958
F.3d at 1200 (a state that cannot obtain
relief from an upwind state’s significant
contribution to a continuing
nonattainment designation ‘‘is stuck in
regulatory limbo’’). Thus, using a
common dataset makes good sense in
this context; it is consistent with the
requirements and the purpose of the
good neighbor provision, and it ensures
these obligations are implemented both
expeditiously and in a consistent and
equitable manner. Weld County, 72
F.4th at 290.57
The use of a common set of air quality
data was upheld in Weld County. The
court, however, went on to find that
another portion of the EPA’s action
under review constituted impermissible
retroactive rulemaking, because it
‘‘effectively backdated’’ a nonattainment
designation, leaving a state that would
have had a three-year period to reach
attainment in the position of ‘‘missing a
compliance deadline that passed before
the underlying legal obligation was
imposed.’’ 72 F.4th at 293. This
proposed action does not operate
retroactively. The EPA’s use of the 2023
analytic year does not in and of itself
impose any obligations on any sources
or states. Rather it provides a common
dataset to assess whether any state is
contributing to downwind problems
attaining the NAAQS. The EPA
proposes to set compliance obligations
based on the amount of time needed for
sources to come into compliance and
does not propose to impose liability on
such sources for not meeting the
proposed obligations at some point in
the past. See section VII.A.4. and B. of
57 While use of a common dataset makes sense for
the reasons stated, the EPA notes that it is not aware
of other data sets, including either monitoring data
or modeling projections, that would suggest
alternative regulatory conclusions from those
proposed here. As evidenced by the most recent
certified monitoring data and design values from
2021 and 2022 used in the violating-monitor
receptor-identification methodology, relatively
elevated ozone levels exceeding the NAAQS
continue to be observed throughout much of the
continental U.S., including in the designated
nonattainment areas where many of the ozonetransport receptors identified in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan are located.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this document. Nor would the proposed
rule apply retroactively to the five states
with SIP submissions proposed to be
disapproved. The EPA is not proposing
to backdate the date of finalization of
these proposed disapprovals to
sometime in the past. Rather, if the
proposed disapprovals are finalized, the
only legal consequence—the
establishment of a duty on the EPA to
promulgate a FIP—would run from the
date a final action is taken. Unlike the
three-year ‘‘runway’’ allowed to reach
attainment that the court found had
been impermissibly denied to the state
in Weld County, 72 F.4th at 293, the
statute affords no such period following
a SIP disapproval. CAA section
110(c)(1). The EPA need not wait a
single day to promulgate a FIP upon
issuing a disapproval of a SIP
submission. EME Homer City, 489 U.S.
at 509. Nor is the EPA obligated to give
states a second chance to submit a SIP
before issuing a FIP. Id. Nonetheless, the
states covered in this supplemental
proposed rulemaking have been on
notice since the issuance of the 2016v3
modeling and violating-monitor
methodology in connection with the SIP
Disapproval and Federal Good Neighbor
Plan actions in winter of 2023 that they
may be subject to a good neighbor FIP
due to identified linkages with
downwind receptors. 88 FR 36656.
None of these five states has moved
since that time to submit a revised SIP
submission to address the relevant
requirements.
For consistency, the Agency similarly
conducted its overcontrol analysis for
this action using the 2023 and 2026 data
(see section VI.D. of this document). The
EPA recognizes that it is appropriate to
provide sufficient lead time to allow
sources in these five states to comply
with the proposed requirements. Based
on the compliance-timing analysis
conducted in the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan and applied here (as
discussed in section VII. of this
document), the dates proposed for the
onset of these requirements for these
five states fall after the 2023 and 2026
analytic years. This too is a matter of
happenstance and does not justify a
deviation from the definition of these
states’ good neighbor obligations.
Similarly, assuming favorable outcomes
in the ongoing litigation resulting in
stays of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
for several states pending judicial
review, the EPA anticipates adjusting
the timing of compliance obligations if
these states are eventually made subject
to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
These circumstances are analogous to an
issue the EPA addressed in the final
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Good Neighbor Plan regarding
the ability of individual sources to
apply for and obtain compliance
extensions. The EPA explained that
where sources obtained such
extensions, the EPA did not intend to
conduct further analysis of whether
those reductions were still required
based on updated air quality analysis.
As the EPA explained, the Agency did
not think individual sources should
gain the benefit of delaying emissions
reductions simply in the hopes that they
could show those reductions would be
overcontrol. This would introduce an
inter-dependency into the analysis,
whereas each source must be held to the
elimination of its portion of significant
contribution. Necessity, the EPA
explained, may demand some
additional amount of time for
compliance, but equity demands that
individual sources not gain an untoward
advantage from delay and reliance on
other sources’ timelier compliance. See
88 FR at 36750 n.253. Thus, here, the
EPA continues to conduct its
overcontrol analysis using the common
datasets for 2023 and 2026, to ensure
consistent and equitable determinations
for what constitutes ‘‘significant
contribution’’ even if the
implementation of those emissions
reductions may be delayed in certain
states or for certain sources.
Thus, the EPA proposes to continue to
use its 2023 and 2026 analytics, to
ensure parity by holding all states to a
consistent set of data in defining good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, to avoid improperly shifting
the burden of emissions reductions to
other upwind and downwind states, and
to provide for an efficient and
administratively workable resolution of
these remaining obligations for five
additional states.
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate
Transport Framework
In Step 1, the EPA identifies
monitoring sites that are projected to
have problems attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023
analytic year. This approach reflects the
EPA’s interpretation of the terms
‘‘nonattainment’’ and ‘‘maintenance’’ as
used in the good neighbor provision in
the context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88
FR at 9341–42. Where the EPA’s
analysis shows that a site does not meet
the definition of a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor, the EPA excludes
that site from further analysis under the
EPA’s 4-step interstate transport
framework. At Step 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework, the EPA
considers those sites identified as a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
in 2023 and identifies which upwind
states contribute to those receptors
above the contribution threshold.
The EPA’s approach to identifying
ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is the same as
that used in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.58 This approach gives
independent consideration to both the
‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment’’ and the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit’s direction in North
Carolina.59 To summarize this
methodology:
The EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that
are projected to have average design
values that exceed the NAAQS and that
are also measuring nonattainment based
on the most recent monitored design
values. This approach is consistent with
prior transport rulemakings, such as the
CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those
monitoring sites that both measure
nonattainment based on recent
monitoring data (here, using certified
2021 data to be consistent with the
analysis in the Good Neighbor Plan) and
that the EPA modeling projected to be
in nonattainment in the analytic year
(i.e., 2023).60 61
In addition, the EPA identified a
receptor to be a ‘‘maintenance’’ receptor
for purposes of defining interference
with maintenance, consistent with the
method used in the CSAPR and upheld
by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118,
136 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City
II).62 Specifically, the EPA identified
maintenance receptors as those
receptors that would have difficulty
58 See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668 for additional details on the EPA’s
evaluation nonattainment and maintenance
receptor identification.
59 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910–
11 (holding that the EPA must give ‘‘independent
significance’’ to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
60 The 2021 design values were the most current
official design values available for use in the
2016v3 modeling. The 2021 ozone design values, by
monitoring site, can be found in the file ‘‘Final GNP
O3 DVs Contributions’’, in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0668.
61 See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data
and modeling to define nonattainment receptor,
was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at 25241,
25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina,
531 F.3d at 913–14 (affirming as reasonable the
EPA’s approach to defining nonattainment in
CAIR).
62 See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this
approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) and
86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12679
maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a
scenario that takes into account
historical variability in air quality at
that receptor. The variability in air
quality was determined by evaluating
the ‘‘maximum’’ future design value at
each receptor based on a projection of
the maximum measured design value
over the relevant period. The EPA
interprets the projected maximum
future design value to be a potential
future air quality outcome consistent
with the meteorology that yielded
maximum measured concentrations in
the ambient data set analyzed for that
receptor (i.e., ozone conducive
meteorology). The EPA also recognizes
that previously experienced
meteorological conditions (e.g.,
dominant wind direction, temperatures,
and air mass patterns) promoting ozone
formation that led to maximum
concentrations in the measured data
may reoccur in the future. The
maximum design value gives a
reasonable projection of future air
quality at the receptor under a scenario
in which such conditions do, in fact,
reoccur. The projected maximum design
value is used to identify upwind
emissions that, under those
circumstances, could interfere with the
downwind area’s ability to maintain the
NAAQS.
Nonattainment receptors are also, by
definition, maintenance receptors, and
so the EPA often uses the term
‘‘maintenance-only’’ to refer to those
receptors that are not nonattainment
receptors. Consistent with the concepts
for maintenance receptors, as described
earlier, the EPA identifies
‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors as those
monitoring sites that have projected
average design values above the level of
the applicable NAAQS, but that are not
currently measuring nonattainment
based on the most recent official design
values.63 In addition, those monitoring
sites with projected average design
values below the NAAQS, but with
projected maximum design values above
the NAAQS are also identified as
‘‘maintenance-only’’ receptors, even if
they are currently measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent
official design values.
The Agency has looked closely at
measured ozone levels at ambient
monitoring sites in 2021 and 2022 for
the purposes of informing the
identification of potential additional
receptors in 2023. As explained in more
detail in the February 13, 2022, final
63 The Agency often uses the terms maintenance
receptor and maintenance-only receptor
interchangeably when discussing maintenance
receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12680
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
action disapproving 19 states’ good
neighbor SIP submissions, and partially
approving and partially disapproving 2
states’ good neighbor SIP submissions
(‘‘Disapproval action’’), see 88 FR at
9349–50, the EPA finds there is a basis
to consider certain sites with elevated
ozone levels that are not otherwise
identified as receptors to be an
additional type of maintenance-only
receptor given the likelihood that ozone
levels above the NAAQS could persist at
those locations through at least 2023.
These are referred to as violatingmonitor maintenance-only receptors
(violating-monitor receptors). In this
action, the EPA proposes to use certified
ambient monitoring data as an
additional method to identify
maintenance-only receptors. More
specifically, violating-monitor receptors
are monitoring sites with measured
2021 and 2022 design values and 2021
and 2022 4th high maximum daily
average 8-hour ozone concentrations
that exceed the NAAQS, despite having
model-projected average and maximum
design values for 2023 below the
NAAQS.64 The EPA finds these sites are
at continuing risk of failing to maintain
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which justifies
categorizing these sites as maintenanceonly receptors. By applying the criteria
that certified 2021 and 2022 design
values and 2021 and 2022 4th high
maximum daily average 8-hour ozone
concentrations must all exceed the
NAAQS the EPA gives due
consideration to both measured air
quality data and its modeling
projections. This reasonably identifies
monitoring sites as receptors in 2023
using this methodology. If sites do not
meet these criteria, then the EPA could
reasonably anticipate these sites to not
have a problem maintaining the NAAQS
in 2023 and should therefore not be
considered receptors.65
The EPA is not reopening its Step 1
methodologies or determinations in this
action as to the 23 states included in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA
proposes to apply this same
methodology to Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee. Comments
64 A design value is calculated using the annual
fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone
concentration averaged over 3 years.
65 We also note that 2023 monitoring data is not
yet certified, and further, because the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan was in effect in several states during
the 2023 ozone season (and sources may have
otherwise voluntarily taken emissions-reduction
measures consistent with the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan either earlier than the effective date
or in states where the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
was stayed), the 2023 monitoring data is less
reliable for use in establishing an air quality
baseline, i.e., one in the absence of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
that are unrelated to or go beyond the
application of these methodologies to
these five states will be treated as
beyond the scope of this action.
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate
Transport Framework
In Step 2 the contribution of each
upwind State to each receptor in the
2023 analytic year is quantified. This
approach reflects how the Agency gives
meaning to the term ‘‘contribute’’ in the
good neighbor provision in relation to
the ‘‘collective contribution’’ problem
posed by interstate ozone pollution. See
88 FR at 9342. The contribution metric
used in Step 2 is defined as the average
impact from each State to each receptor
on the days with the highest ozone
concentrations at the receptor based on
the 2023 modeling. If a State’s
contribution value does not equal or
exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the
NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 ppb for the 2015
ozone NAAQS), the upwind State is not
‘‘linked’’ to a downwind air quality
problem, and the EPA, therefore,
concludes that the State does not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a State’s
average contribution equals or exceeds
the 1 percent threshold, the EPA further
evaluates the State’s emissions in Step
3, considering both air quality and cost
as part of a multi-factor analysis, to
determine what, if any, emissions might
be deemed ‘‘significant’’ and, thus, must
be eliminated pursuant to the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
In this proposed action, the EPA relies
in the first instance on the 1 percent
threshold for the purpose of evaluating
a State’s contribution to nonattainment
or maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind
receptors. This is consistent with the
Step 2 approach that the EPA applied in
the Disapproval action and in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA
has acknowledged that states may have
been able to justify use of a different
threshold at Step 2. For reasons
explained in section IV. of this
document, no State included in this
action successfully made this
demonstration. In addition, the EPA
explained in both the Disapproval
action and in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan that the need for
consistent treatment of all states
counsels against recognizing alternative
thresholds on a state-by-state basis.
Based on its experience since the release
of the August 2018 memorandum, the
EPA has also determined, as explained
in the Disapproval action and Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Good Neighbor Plan, that it is not a good
use of Agency resources nor is it wise
policy for the EPA to attempt to justify
the use of an alternative threshold on
behalf of any State that failed to conduct
an adequate analysis itself. Likewise,
maintaining continuity across ozone
NAAQS through consistent application
of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold at
Step 2 is appropriate, so that, as the
NAAQS is revised and made more
protective, the contribution threshold is
correspondingly adjusted as well. See
88 FR at 36712–17; 88 FR at 9371–75.
See also 86 FR at 23085 (use of 1
percent threshold in the Revised CSAPR
Update); 81 FR at 74518 (basis for use
of 1 percent threshold for the 2008
ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR Update);
76 FR at 48237–38 (original
determination to use 1 percent
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
CSAPR).
Therefore, application of a consistent
contribution threshold is important to
identify those upwind states that should
have responsibility for addressing their
contribution to the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
problems to which they collectively
contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent
of the NAAQS as the screening metric
to evaluate collective contribution from
many upwind states also allows the EPA
(and states) to apply a consistent
framework to evaluate interstate
emissions transport under the interstate
transport provision from one NAAQS to
the next and helps ensure that good
neighbor obligations align with the
stringency of the NAAQS.
The issue of the appropriate
contribution threshold to apply was
thoroughly addressed in the
Disapproval action and the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan rulemakings, and
the EPA responded to numerous
comments on this topic. The EPA is not
reopening this issue in this action,
except as to the question of whether
there is any reason to regard the Step 2
contribution threshold differently for
any of these five additional states. The
Agency, however, sees no basis to do so.
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate
Transport Framework
At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework, the EPA further
evaluates a State’s emissions, in light of
multiple factors, including air quality
and cost considerations, to determine
what, if any, emissions significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This approach reflects
the EPA’s interpretation of the phrases
‘‘contribute significantly’’ or ‘‘interfere
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
with maintenance’’ as used in the good
neighbor provision in the context of the
ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at 9342–43.
Under the EPA’s longstanding
approach to eliminating significant
contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance, at Step
3, a multi-factor assessment of potential
emissions controls would be conducted
for states linked at Step 1 and 2. The
EPA’s analysis at Step 3 in prior Federal
actions addressing interstate transport
requirements has primarily focused on
an evaluation of cost-effectiveness of
potential emissions controls (on a
marginal cost-per-ton basis), the total
emissions reductions that may be
achieved by requiring such controls (if
applied across all linked upwind states),
and an evaluation of the air quality
impacts such emissions reductions
would have on the downwind receptors
to which a State is linked; other factors
may potentially be relevant if
adequately supported.
The EPA has consistently applied this
general approach to Step 3 when
identifying emissions contributions that
the Agency has determined to be
‘‘significant’’ (or interfere with
maintenance) in each of its prior Federal
and regional ozone transport
rulemakings, and this interpretation of
the statute has been upheld by the
Supreme Court. See EME Homer City,
572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While the EPA
has not directed states that they must
conduct a Step 3 analysis in precisely
the manner the EPA has done in its
prior regional transport rulemakings,
State implementation plans addressing
the obligations in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ‘‘any
source or other type of emissions
activity within the State’’ from emitting
air pollutants which will contribute
significantly to downwind air quality
problems. Thus, states must undertake
an analysis similar to the EPA’s analysis
(or an alternative approach to defining
‘‘significance’’ that comports with the
statute’s objectives) to determine
whether and to what degree emissions
from a State should be ‘‘prohibited’’ to
eliminate emissions that will
‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment in or interfere with
maintenance of’’ the NAAQS in any
other state. See 88 FR at 9342–43, 9375–
76.
In general, where the EPA’s or stateprovided alternative air quality and
contribution modeling establishes that a
State is linked at Steps 1 and 2, it will
be insufficient at Step 3 for a State
merely to point to its existing rules
requiring control measures as a basis for
SIP submission approval. In general, the
emissions-reducing effects of all existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
emissions control requirements are
already reflected in the future year
projected air quality results of the
modeling for Steps 1 and 2.
If the State is shown to still be linked
to one or more downwind receptor(s)
despite these existing controls, but that
State believes it has no outstanding
good neighbor obligations, the EPA
expects the State to provide sufficient
justification to support a conclusion that
the State has adequate provisions
prohibiting ‘‘any source or other type of
emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will’’ ‘‘contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by,’’ any other State with
respect to the NAAQS. See CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the EPA has not
prescribed a particular method for this
assessment, the EPA expects states at a
minimum to present a sufficient
technical evaluation. This would
typically include information on
emissions sources, applicable control
technologies, emissions reductions,
costs, cost-effectiveness, and downwind
air quality impacts of the estimated
reductions, before concluding that no
additional emissions controls should be
required.66
As explained in section III.A. in this
document, the EPA and states must give
independent significance to Prong 1
(significant contribution to
nonattainment) and Prong 2
(interference with maintenance) when
evaluating downwind air quality
problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).67 The EPA gives effect
to Prong 2 through identifying receptors
that may have trouble attaining the
NAAQS under varying air quality and
meteorological conditions. EME Homer
City upheld the EPA’s approach to using
cost to determine ‘‘amounts’’ with
respect to both Prong 1 and 2. EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, 572 U.S. at
518–520. The EPA’s use of the term
‘‘significant contribution’’ in its analysis
at the third step of the 4-step interstate
transport framework is applied for both
Prongs 1 and 2. This approach to giving
effect to the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ prong has been upheld
66 As examples of general approaches for how
such an analysis could be conducted for their
sources, states could look to the CSAPR Update, 81
FR 74504, 74539–51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246–
63; CAIR, 70 FR 25162, 25195–229; or the NOX SIP
Call, 63 FR 57356, 57399–405. See also Revised
CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086–23116.
Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA has
developed emissions inventories, analyzed different
levels of control stringency at different cost
thresholds, and assessed resulting downwind air
quality improvements.
67 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909–
11 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12681
twice by the D.C. Circuit. See EME
Homer City, 795 F.3d at 136; Wisconsin,
938 F.3d at 325–27. In effect, the EPA’s
determination of what level of upwind
contribution constitutes ‘‘interference’’
with a maintenance receptor is the same
determination as what constitutes
‘‘significant contribution’’ for a
nonattainment receptor. Nonetheless,
this continues to give independent
effect to Prong 2 because the EPA
applies a broader definition for
identifying maintenance receptors,
which accounts for the possibility of
problems maintaining the NAAQS
under realistic potential future
conditions. While the EPA and others
may occasionally use the language of
‘‘significance’’ as a shorthand for
determinations at the third step under
both Prongs 1 and 2, this does not
detract from the fact that the EPA gives
Prong 2 independent effect under the 4step interstate transport framework.
Alternative approaches to defining and
prohibiting emissions that ‘‘interfere
with maintenance’’ must be, like the
EPA’s approach, legally and technically
justified and give effect to the language
of the statute in a manner that ensures
states’ good neighbor obligations are
defined in a consistent and equitable
manner.
As explained in section IV.B. and
V.A. of this document, no states whose
SIP submissions the EPA is proposing to
partially disapprove in this action
conducted an adequate analysis at Step
3, following either the EPA’s approach
or an alternative approach. As explained
in section I.A. of this document and
further detailed in section VI. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to
apply the same Step 3 analysis and
methodology completed in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states to the
additional states of Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
The EPA’s approach to Step 3 is
explained in section III.B.1.c. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.68
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate
Transport Framework
At Step 4, states (or the EPA) develop
permanent and federally-enforceable
control strategies to achieve the
emissions reductions determined to be
necessary at Step 3 to eliminate
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS, as
necessary to comply with the terms of
the good neighbor provision requiring
that SIPs (or FIPs) ‘‘contain adequate
provisions prohibiting’’ such emissions.
88 FR at 9343. These control strategies
68 88
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
FR 36654, at 36678.
16FEP3
12682
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
must be included in the State’s SIP so
that they are made permanent and
federally enforceable. See CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) (‘‘Each such [SIP] shall . . .
contain adequate provisions—
prohibiting . . .’’). See also CAA section
110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better
Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169, 1175–76
(9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures
relied on by a State to meet CAA
requirements must be included in the
SIP submission).
As with the previous steps of the
framework, as explained in section I.A.
of this document and further detailed in
section VII. of this document, in
proposing FIPs for Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee,
the EPA is proposing to implement
necessary emissions reductions through
the same set of permanent and
enforceable measures promulgated for
23 other states in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. The EPA’s approach to
Step 4 is explained in section III.B.1.d.
of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.69
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing
Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for
the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
1. Arizona
On September 24, 2018, the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the
‘‘Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ (‘‘Arizona’s 2018 SIP
Submission’’). Arizona’s 2018 SIP
Submission addresses the
‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2), including the good
neighbor provisions under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.70
Arizona’s 2018 SIP Submission
describes the 4-step interstate transport
framework established by the EPA to
address the good neighbor provision.71
Arizona references the results of the
ozone modeling completed by the EPA
using CAMx version 6.40 and 2011 base
year, made available in the March 2018
memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in the State at
69 88
FR 36654, at 36684.
dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy
S. Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ,
to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, Subject: ‘‘Submittal of the Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS.’’
71 Arizona’s 2018 SIP submission, 12.
70 Letter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework. Arizona noted that
the modeling results cited in the March
2018 memorandum demonstrate that
Arizona is not shown to contribute
greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb) to any of the modeled
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in other states.72 Despite asserting that
‘‘Arizona still maintains that the one
percent threshold is poorly suited for
determining contribution obligations in
the Southwestern US,’’ Arizona relies
on the contribution threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS at Step 2.73
Based on the model results cited in
Arizona’s 2018 iSIP Submission,
Arizona finds that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in other states
and that it is not necessary to identify
emissions reductions or adopt any
permanent or enforceable controls
under the interstate transport provision
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.74 Arizona
also asserts that the Arizona SIP
contains adequate provisions to ensure
that air emissions in Arizona will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other State in the future.75
regional ozone transport for the 2015
ozone NAAQS, identifying additional
alleged flaws and omissions in the
2016v2 modeling.78
As described in section III.B. of this
document, the EPA constructed its
2016v3 emissions platform to update
ozone transport modeling in response to
these and similar comments received on
the 2016v2 modeling and to develop the
2016v3 air quality modeling. The EPA
also recognized that monitoring data for
2021 and 2022 supported recognizing
additional, violating-monitor receptors.
The EPA used this updated air quality
analysis to inform its final Disapproval
and Federal Good Neighbor Plan
actions.79 80 As described later in section
IV.B.1. of this document, the 2016v3
modeling and violating-monitor
receptor methodology identifies
Arizona’s maximum contribution to
numerous downwind maintenance
receptors to be greater than 1 percent of
the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb).
Because the latest available modeling
indicates that Arizona is linked to
downwind maintenance receptors, the
EPA is now withdrawing its 2022
proposed approval of Arizona’s 2018
SIP Submission with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I).
Prior Notices Related to Arizona’s SIP
Submission
On June 24, 2022, the EPA proposed
to approve Arizona’s 2018 iSIP
Submission as meeting the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.76 Our proposed approval was
based upon the conclusion that Arizona
was not linked to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, which was supported by the
2016v2 modeling described in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the
proposed approval.77 In response to that
proposed rulemaking, the EPA received
one comment letter providing evidence
to suggest that Arizona likely
contributes significantly to interstate
ozone pollution. The commenter alleged
that the 2016v2 modeling arbitrarily
omits Arizona contributions to monitors
in El Paso County, Texas, and Don˜a Ana
County, New Mexico, and that Arizona
is likely to significantly contribute to
ozone concentrations at these receptors.
The commenter also incorporated by
reference comments that the commenter
submitted in response to the EPA’s
April 6, 2022, proposed FIP addressing
2. New Mexico
The EPA made a finding in 2019 that
New Mexico had failed to submit a
complete good neighbor SIP submission.
See 84 FR 66612 (December 4, 2019).
This triggered the EPA’s obligation to
promulgate a FIP for New Mexico
within 2 years. When the EPA failed to
do so, multiple parties brought
deadline-suit litigation against the
Agency. This resulted in a consent
decree deadline of June 1, 2024, to
either promulgate a FIP for New Mexico
or approve a SIP submission fully
resolving New Mexico’s good neighbor
obligations. WildEarth Guardians v.
Regan, No. 22–cv–00174–RB–GBW
(D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2022); Sierra Club v.
Regan, No. 3:22–cv–01992–JD (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 24, 2023). By stipulation of the
parties, that deadline has now been
extended to August 30, 2024. The EPA’s
duty to promulgate a FIP for New
72 Id.
at 13.
73 Id.
74 Id.
75 Id.
at 14.
FR 37776 (June 24, 2022).
77 87 FR 37776, 37782.
76 87
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
78 87
FR 20036 (April 6, 2022).
Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of
Air Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 88 FR 9336
(February 13, 2023), and ‘‘Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,’’ 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
80 Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and
the methods for projecting design values and
determining contributions in 2023 and 2026 are
described in the TSD titled ‘‘Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan,’’ hereafter known as the Final Good
Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
79 ‘‘Air
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Mexico can only be suspended by the
approval of a SIP submission. As
discussed in section IV.B. of this
document, the EPA proposes to
disapprove the SIP submission New
Mexico subsequently submitted,
described below. This disapproval, if
finalized, would not alter or reset the
EPA’s pre-existing obligation to
promulgate a FIP for New Mexico.
On July 27, 2021, the New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED)
submitted a SIP submission certifying
that the State’s SIP satisfies
requirements of interstate transport of
air pollution for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. On June 9, 2021, on behalf of
the City of Albuquerque Environmental
Health Department (EHD), the Cabinet
Secretary of NMED submitted to the
EPA a certification that AlbuquerqueBernalillo County, and New Mexico as
a whole, ‘‘does not cause or contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state.’’ 81 NMED and EHD’s
submission contained what NMED
characterized as a weight of evidence
analysis of New Mexico’s contribution
to ozone transport receptors using the
data provided in the EPA’s modeling
results included as an attachment to the
March 2018 memorandum. New Mexico
did not explicitly follow the 4-step
interstate transport framework but did
examine downwind air quality and New
Mexico’s contributions using the
analytic year of 2023 to describe New
Mexico’s linkages to receptors. On July
5, 2023, NMED submitted a
supplemental letter containing Exhibit
A, for the EPA’s consideration in the
Agency’s review of the NMED and EHD
SIP submissions. The following sections
describe NMED and EHD’s submissions,
including Exhibit A, and the
information provided for each step in
the process.
a. Information Provided by New Mexico
Regarding Step 1
For Step 1 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework, NMED and EHD
SIP submissions relied on the EPA’s
interstate transport modeling results
that are included as an attachment to
the March 2018 memorandum.82 These
EPA modeling results, using a 2011 base
year, provided: (1) projected average
design value and maximum design
value for 2023 for ozone monitors to
identify nonattainment or maintenance
receptors and (2) projected average
contribution from State emissions to the
EHD SIP submission, attachment B, page 3.
explained in section IV.A.2.c., NMED’s
Exhibit A acknowledged the EPA’s 2016v3
modeling results and linkages.
projected ozone concentrations at each
ozone monitor to identify upwind stateto-downwind receptor linkages.
b. Information Provided by New Mexico
Regarding Step 2
NMED and EHD’s submission
presented New Mexico’s projected 2023
ozone contributions to maintenance and
nonattainment receptors using the
projections from the EPA’s March 2018
memorandum. The State agencies state
that in past rulemakings, the EPA has
relied upon the 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS standard (0.70 ppb)
contribution threshold when evaluating
if an upwind State has a ‘‘potentially
significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance’’ 83 impacts air quality in a
downwind state. New Mexico began
their Step 2 analysis by using the EPA’s
1 percent threshold to evaluate
contribution and identified that the
State contributes 1 percent or more of
the NAAQS to one maintenance
receptor: Weld County Tower, Colorado
(Monitor ID: 081230009), and one
nonattainment receptor, Rocky Flats-N,
Colorado (Monitor ID: 080590006).84 85
Additionally, the EPA’s March 2018
memorandum modeling indicated that
upwind states contribute roughly 8 and
10 percent of the modeled 2023 design
value at the Weld County receptor and
the Rocky Flats-N receptor, respectively.
However, NMED and EHD argue that
New Mexico does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance at the Weld
County Tower and Rocky Flats-N
receptors. NMED and EHD assert that a
‘‘weight of evidence’’ analysis is more
appropriate than relying on a single,
national standard for identifying
linkages and determining whether
contributions from an upwind State are
significant. NMED and EHD believe that
New Mexico should not be linked to
Colorado receptors in the EPA’s
transport Step 2 analysis because the
majority of the contribution to these
receptors comes directly from Colorado.
NMED and EHD attempt to justify this
position by relying on a previous
transport rulemaking that determined
certain monitoring sites in California
were not interstate transport receptors.
Specifically, New Mexico references the
approval of Arizona’s 2008 ozone
transport SIP submission, see 81 FR
31513. In that action, the EPA
determined that Arizona did not
significantly contribute to two
California monitoring sites despite
81 See
82 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
SIP submission Attachment B, page 7.
at Table 1, page 4.
85 Id. at page 5.
12683
contributing more than 1 percent of the
NAAQS, because the EPA found the
total collective contribution from all
upwind states was so low at these sites
that they need not be considered
transport receptors. New Mexico
attempts to expand the application of
the EPA’s reasoning in the Arizona
action, asserting it would also be
appropriate not to link New Mexico, or
the other linked upwind states, to the
Colorado receptors at the 1 percent
threshold.
NMED and EHD’s submission also
claims that the relative share of in-state
versus out-of-state contribution in
Colorado, topographical influences on
the transport of ozone in Colorado, and
other air quality information support its
‘‘weight-of-evidence’’ analysis. To
identify the portion of ozone levels in
Colorado coming from in-state
emissions as opposed to upwind-state
emissions, New Mexico relied on the
EPA’s 2018 memorandum modeling
data. Based on this data, NMED and
EHD determined in-state emissions
outweighed the portion of emissions
coming from upwind states collectively.
NMED and EHD considered the
topological influences on ozone
concentrations in the Denver area based
on information prepared by Colorado to
support the final 2015 ozone NAAQS
designation of the Denver area.86 NMED
and EHD assert in their submissions that
the receptors in Colorado are
predominantly impacted from local
sources and thus the minimal
contributions from upwind states do not
warrant further controls in New Mexico.
They contend that the topography of the
Denver nonattainment area (NAA)
disproportionally favors the formation
of ozone due to local emissions. As
support for their argument, NMED and
EHD point to the EPA’s TSD supporting
the designation of the Denver NAA:
‘‘The three key circulation patterns
(drainage flow, upslope flow, and
mountain-plains solenoid circulation),
in conjunction with the surface
topography, in the [Denver] area serve to
trap emissions and produce ozone in the
basin formed by the surrounding higher
elevation features. Further, these
circulation patterns serve to recirculate
prior day emissions into the Denver area
population centers as the mountainplains solenoid flow lifts the polluted
atmosphere up the mountain slopes of
the Rocky Mountains to the west in
warm afternoons, and then returns the
polluted air to the surface as the lofted
air circulates back to the east and
83 EHD’s
84 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
86 Id. at page 17. See also 83 FR 25776 (June 4,
2018).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12684
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
subsides overnight.’’ 87 New Mexico
presents this information to further
support their claim that the Denver
NAA is significantly more impacted by
emissions from within Colorado than
from interstate transport.
NMED and EHD’s final weight of
evidence factor consisted of an
assessment of ozone air quality
monitoring data and design values.
Here, they identify downward trends in
ozone precursor emissions (NOX and
VOC) from 2005 to 2018. NMED and
EHD cite New Mexico’s current on-thebooks rules as sufficient to resolve the
State’s transport responsibilities and as
reason to believe downward trends in
emissions and ozone concentrations at
the receptors for which they contribute
greater than 0.70 ppb (Rock Flats-N and
Well County Tower monitors) will
continue to decrease. NMED included
data on an overall trend of slightly
increasing VOC emissions and
decreasing NOX emissions in New
Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, and
Texas from 2002 to 2014. New Mexico
also provided data exhibiting a decrease
of VOC and NOX emissions from
Colorado during the same time period.
New Mexico credited the downward
emissions trends to permanent and
enforceable control measures. New
Mexico made an argument that overall
decreasing ozone concentrations and
emissions trends in the state, and other
upwind states, correlate with reduced
contributions to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors outside of New
Mexico. NMED and EHD concluded that
decreasing ambient ozone
concentrations in Colorado is indicative
of New Mexico contributing less to
ozone in downwind states as time goes
on.
This concluded New Mexico’s
analysis in its original submission. New
Mexico did not conduct an analysis of
emissions-control opportunities within
the State at Step 3. NMED and EHD
concluded it would be unreasonable for
New Mexico to take further actions to
address its obligations under the good
neighbor provisions for the ozone
NAAQS. Thus, at Step 4, NMED and
EHD determined that no additional
permanent and enforceable measures
were necessary to reduce the State’s
emissions.
c. New Mexico Letter
On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted for
the EPA’s consideration a letter with an
attachment, Exhibit A. The letter
indicates its submission is in response
to the EPA’s indication that it may
87 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2018-05/documents/co_tsd_final_0.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
disapprove New Mexico’s SIP
submission. To the EPA’s awareness,
this letter was not subject to public
notice or rulemaking process at the State
level and does not in itself purport to be
a SIP submission or a revision to New
Mexico’s SIP. As such, the EPA takes
the information in the letter under
advisement but does not consider this
letter to be a new SIP submission in its
own right or part of the SIP submission
dated July 27, 2021.
In its letter, NMED asserts the EPA
should account for emissions reductions
that have occurred since 2020 that could
resolve the State’s transport obligations.
NMED identified emissions reductions
from two current compliance orders that
resulted in a reduction of 236 tons of
annual NOX emissions. NMED entered
into a settlement agreement with ETC
Texas Pipeline Ltd (ETC) for its Jal #3
plant, compliance order No. AQB 20–
63, which was lodged on August 25,
2021. The settlement agreement
mandated that the facility remove its
sulfur recovery unit, which resulted in
an emissions reduction of 4.8 tons of
NOX per year. Additionally, NMED
entered into a consent decree with ETC
for its Eunice Gas Plant, compliance
order No. AQB 20–64, which was
lodged on September 9, 2021. The
consent decree required the shutdown
of the Eunice plant, except for Amanda
Booster Station, resulting in emissions
decrease of 231.4 tons of NOX per year.
Lastly, NMED references emissions
reductions anticipated from the consent
decree lodged with Matador Production
Company, filed on March 27, 2023.
NMED is anticipating emissions
reductions of a total 77 tons of NOX over
3 years and to occur before 2030.
NMED argues that the emissions
reductions resulting from these
compliance orders are satisfactory to
fulfil the emissions reductions that
would occur under the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for the 2015 Ozone
Standard. NMED states that based on
the formula applied under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified
30 tons of emissions reductions
achievable in 2023 under the current
formula for EGU emissions
reductions.88 NMED claims that the
‘‘EPA indicated that this 30 ton per year
reduction would be all that is necessary
to meet its good neighbor FIP
requirements.’’ 89 NMED argues that as
the NOX emissions decreases outlined
in the provided consent decrees are
88 Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule
Technical Support Document. Table B–3. 2024
Ozone Season NOX Emissions for States at Different
Uniform Control Scenarios.
89 NMED’s July 5, 2023, letter to the EPA, at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
greater than the emissions reductions
anticipated in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the State will have met
its obligations for interstate transport.
3. Tennessee
On September 13, 2018, Tennessee
submitted a SIP revision addressing the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate
transport requirements for the 2015 8hour ozone NAAQS.90 91 The SIP
submission provided Tennessee’s
analysis of its impact to downwind
states and concluded that emissions
from the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in other states.
Tennessee’s submission relied on the
EPA’s modeling results for 2023 using a
2011 base year, contained in the March
2018, memorandum, to identify
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors that may be
impacted by emissions from sources in
the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.92 The
Tennessee Department of
Environmental Control (TDEC) reviewed
the EPA’s 2023 modeling, concurred
with the results, and determined that
the EPA’s future year projections were
reasonable and account for source
shutdowns, new controls, and fuel
switches. TDEC summarized the State’s
upwind contribution to 26
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and noted that according to
the modeling, Tennessee’s largest
impact on any potential downwind
receptor in 2023 would be 0.31 ppb to
a nonattainment receptor and 0.65 ppb
to a maintenance receptor. Tennessee
concluded that emissions from
Tennessee do not contribute above 1
percent of the NAAQS or above 1 ppb
at any receptors.
Tennessee’s submission asserted that
NOX emissions are considered the
primary cause of formation of ozone in
the southeast United States, and
emphasized a significant reduction in
NOX emissions reductions from coalfired EGUs and other large NOX sources
leading to improvements in air quality,
including reductions attributable to
90 The September 13, 2019, SIP submission
provided by TDEC was received by the EPA on
September 17, 2018.
91 On September 18, 2018, Tennessee submitted
multiple SIP revisions under one cover letter. The
EPA is only acting on Tennessee’s 2015 ozone good
neighbor interstate transport SIP requirements in
this document.
92 The EPA notes that Tennessee’s SIP submission
is not organized around the EPA’s 4-step interstate
transport framework for assessing good neighbor
obligations, but the EPA summarizes the
submission using that framework for clarity here.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
interstate transport SIP submission, and
the EPA proposed disapproval of
Tennessee’s submission. See 87 FR 9545
(February 22, 2022).
As described in section III.C. of this
document, the EPA received numerous
comments on the 2016v2 modeling used
in its proposed ozone transport actions,
including its proposed disapproval of
Tennessee’s submission. The EPA
incorporated this feedback and made
several updates to the 2016v2
inventories and model design to
construct a 2016v3 emissions platform,
which the EPA used to develop the
2016v3 air quality modeling. The EPA
used the 2016v3 modeling to support
the final action on 21 interstate
transport SIP submissions for the 2015
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee’s SIP ozone NAAQS.96 97 The Agency also
Submission
found there were additional receptors
that would struggle to attain or maintain
Previously, the EPA proposed
the NAAQS in 2023, which it identified
approval of Tennessee’s September 13,
as violating-monitor receptors. The final
2018, SIP submission, based on the
air quality analysis modeling indicated
contribution modeling provided in the
that while Tennessee was no longer
March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR
projected in the modeling to be linked
71854 (December 30, 2019). When the
EPA completed updated modeling of the to any nonattainment or maintenance
2023 analytic year in 2020 using a 2016- receptors, the State was linked above 1
percent of the NAAQS to five violatingbased emissions modeling platform
monitor receptors, all located in Texas.
(2016v1), however, it became evident
See 2016v3 AQM TSD, at C–5.
that Tennessee was projected to be
Although the EPA identified a linkage
linked to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors.95 As a result, the between emissions in Tennessee and
violating-monitor receptors, in
EPA did not act on Tennessee’s SIP
recognition that it had not included
submission when it published a
such receptors in its proposed action,
supplemental proposal in 2021 to
the EPA did not take final action on
approve four other southeastern states’
Tennessee’s transport SIP submission at
good neighbor SIP submissions, using
that time. The EPA is now withdrawing
the updated 2023 modeling. See 86 FR
its proposed disapproval of Tennessee’s
37942, 37943 (July 19, 2021).
The 2016v2 modeling comported with September 13, 2018, interstate transport
SIP submission as published on
the 2016v1 modeling results for
February 22, 2022, at 87 FR 9545.
Tennessee, in that it continued to show
Tennessee was linked to at least one
B. EPA Evaluation
downwind-maintenance-only receptor
The EPA is proposing to find that SIP
in 2023. Based on this information and
submissions
from Arizona, New Mexico,
the EPA’s evaluation of the information
and Tennessee meet the states’
and arguments put forward by the State
in its submission, the EPA withdrew its obligations with respect to Prong 1,
prohibiting emissions that contribute
December 30, 2019, proposed approval
significantly to nonattainment of the
of Tennessee’s September 13, 2018,
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but do not
meet obligations with respect to Prong
93 The Tennessee SIP revision specifically cites
2, interference with maintenance of the
the NOX Budget Trading Program, CAIR, and
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
CSAPR. In addition, the Tennessee SIP revision
discusses Tennessee rule 1200–03–27–.12 (NOX SIP state. This proposal is based on the
Call requirements for Stationary Boilers and
EPA’s evaluation of each State’s SIP
Combustion Turbines), which had not been
submission, considered in light of the
approved into the SIP at the time of the September
state-of-the-science 2016v3 modeling for
13, 2018, submission. The EPA finalized approval
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
previous transport rulemakings.93
Additionally, TDEC identifies existing
SIP-approved provisions, Federal
regulations and programs, court
settlements, and statewide source
shutdowns that TDEC believes limit
ozone precursor emissions in the
State.94
Based on the information contained in
Tennessee’s transport SIP submission,
TDEC concluded that Tennessee does
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in another State of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the
SIP submission provides for adequate
measures to control ozone precursor
emissions.
of TAPR 1200–03–27–.12 into the Tennessee SIP on
March 2, 2021. See 86 FR 12092.
94 See page 9 through 12 of Tennessee’s
September 13, 2018, SIP submission for a list of
SIP-approved State rules and Federal rules. This
can be found in Docket No. EPA–R04–OAR–2021–
0841.
95 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Final Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update’’, available in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
96 Disapproval Action, 88 FR 9336 (February 13,
2023), and Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 88 FR
36654 (June 5, 2023).
97 Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and
the methods for projecting design values and
determining contributions in 2023 and 2026 are
described in the TSD titled ‘‘Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan,’’ hereafter known as the Final Good
Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12685
2023 and 2026, the certified ozone
monitoring data and design values for
2021 and 2022, and corresponding
contribution analysis. Therefore, the
EPA is proposing to partially approve
with respect to Prong 1 and partially
disapprove with respect to Prong 2 the
SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee.
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided
by Arizona Regarding Steps 1 and 2
In Arizona’s 2018 SIP Submission, the
State cites the EPA modeling released in
the March 2018 memorandum to
conclude that Arizona does not
contribute significantly (i.e., equal to or
above the 0.70 ppb threshold) to any
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in another state.98 In this proposal, the
EPA relies on the Agency’s 2016v3
modeling, which uses a more recent
base year and more up-to-date emissions
inventories, compared to the modeling
that was released in the March 2018
memo. The 2016v3 modeling along with
the violating-monitor receptor
methodology are used to identify
downwind receptors, calculate upwind
contributions, and determine ‘‘linkages’’
to downwind air quality problems in
2023 using the 0.70 ppb threshold (i.e.,
1 percent of the NAAQS). As shown in
Tables IV.B–1–3, the updated EPA
contribution modeling identifies
Arizona’s maximum contribution to a
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor to be greater than
1 percent of the standard (i.e., greater
than 0.70 ppb). Because the entire
technical basis for Arizona’s
determination with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its 2018 SIP
Submission is that Arizona is not linked
at Step 2, the EPA proposes to partially
disapprove Arizona’s SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2, interference
with maintenance, based on the EPA’s
finding that such a linkage does exist to
maintenance-only receptors.
b. Results of the EPA’s Step 1 and Step
2 Modeling and Findings for Arizona
As described in section III.B. of this
document, the EPA performed air
quality modeling using the 2016v3
emissions platform to project design
values and contributions for 2023 and
2026. These data were examined to
determine if Arizona contributes at or
above the threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. As shown in
Table IV.B–1, the data indicate that, in
98 Arizona’s
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
2018 iSIP submission, 13–14.
16FEP3
12686
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2023, emissions from Arizona
contribute greater than 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS to six maintenanceonly receptors in Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Texas.99 Table IV.B.1–
3 indicates that in 2023, emissions from
Arizona contribute greater than 1
percent of the NAAQS to three
violating-monitor maintenance-only
receptors in Nevada and New Mexico.
Furthermore, data for 2026 in Table
IV.B.1–2 indicate that emissions from
Arizona contribute greater than 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to
five maintenance-only receptors in
Colorado and New Mexico.100 In
addition, Arizona’s contribution
exceeds 1 ppb at five receptors in 2023
and two receptors in 2026. Thus,
whether Arizona could have sought to
justify an alternative 1 ppb threshold is
irrelevant to EPA’s determination that
Arizona is linked, as Arizona’s
contributions to receptors exceed even
that higher alternative contribution
threshold.
TABLE IV.B.1–1—ARIZONA LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA UPDATED 2023 MODELING
Receptor ID
Location
Nonattainment/maintenance
80690011 .......................
350130021 .....................
350130022 .....................
350151005 .....................
350250008 .....................
481410037 .....................
Larimer, Colorado ...................
Don˜a Ana, New Mexico ..........
Don˜a Ana, New Mexico ..........
Eddy, New Mexico ..................
Lea, New Mexico ....................
El Paso, Texas ........................
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
2023 Average
design value
(ppb)
2023 Maximum
design value
(ppb)
70.9
70.8
69.7
69.7
69.8
69.8
72.1
72.1
72.4
74.1
72.2
71.4
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Arizona
contribution
(ppb)
0.86
1.04
1.06
1.34
1.66
1.69
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
TABLE IV.B.1–2—ARIZONA LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA UPDATED 2026 MODELING
Receptor ID
Location
Nonattainment/maintenance
80690011 .......................
350130021 .....................
350130022 .....................
350151005 .....................
350250008 .....................
Larimer, Colorado ...................
Don˜a Ana, New Mexico ..........
Don˜a Ana, New Mexico ..........
Eddy, New Mexico ..................
Lea, New Mexico ....................
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
Maintenance-Only
2026 Average
design value
(ppb)
2026 Maximum
design value
(ppb)
70.0
69.9
69.0
69.1
69.2
71.2
71.2
71.6
73.4
71.6
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Arizona
contribution
(ppb)
0.71
0.82
0.82
1.06
1.34
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
TABLE IV.B.1–3—ARIZONA 2023 LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS
2021
Design value
(ppb)
Receptor ID
Location
320030043 ...........
350011012 ...........
350130008 ...........
Clark, Nevada ....................................
Bernalillo, New Mexico ......................
Don˜a Ana, New Mexico .....................
2022
Design value
(ppb)
73
72
76
2021
4th high
(ppb)
75
73
71
2022
4th high
(ppb)
74
76
79
Arizona
contribution
(ppb)
74
74
78
0.77
1.62
1.13
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Therefore, based on the EPA’s
evaluation of the information submitted
by Arizona, and based on the EPA’s
most recent modeling results for 2023
and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions
platform, the EPA proposes to find that
Arizona is not linked to any
nonattainment receptor. However, the
EPA finds that Arizona is linked at
Steps 1 and 2 to at least one, and in fact
several, maintenance-only receptors,
based on the available analytical
information, which includes the
modeling results from the 2016v3
platform and the violating-monitor
receptor analysis.
99 Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD,
Appendix C, available in Docket ID No EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0668.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
c. Evaluation of Information Provided
Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework, a state’s
emissions are further evaluated, in light
of multiple factors, including air quality
and cost considerations. The EPA
recognizes that the modeling results
released with the March 2018
memorandum indicated Arizona would
not contribute at or above 1 percent of
the NAAQS to any downwind receptor.
100 Id.
101 Arizona’s
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Arizona’s 2018 SIP Submission
therefore concluded that it was not
necessary to identify any emissions
reductions or adopt any permanent and
enforceable controls to meet the good
neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.101 Arizona’s 2018 SIP
Submission states that ‘‘Arizona
believes that this SIP contains adequate
provisions to ensure that air emissions
in Arizona do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other State in the
future.’’ 102
However, as discussed previously in
this section, the EPA’s more recent air
quality analysis for 2023 and 2026
102 Id
at 14.
2018 iSIP Submission, 13–14.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
indicates that sources in Arizona are in
fact contributing to downwind air
quality problems at several
maintenance-only receptors. Based on
this record, the EPA finds the State’s
conclusion that its SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions interfering with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other
states to lack justification, and the EPA
proposes to partially disapprove the
submission.
d. Conclusion
For the reasons described in this
section, the EPA proposes to partially
approve Arizona’s SIP submission with
respect to Prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to partially
disapprove Arizona’s SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
2. New Mexico
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
a. Evaluation of Information Provided
by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
As noted earlier, NMED and EHD first
relied on the modeling information from
the EPA’s March 2018 memorandum
which used a 2011 base period with
2011 meteorology to identify
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and upwind-state contribution
levels at those receptors. NMED and
EHD acknowledged that this modeling
showed a linkage to one nonattainment
and one maintenance-only receptor in
the Denver area at or above 0.70 ppb.
Since the time of the State’s submission,
the EPA updated the modeling to a 2016
base period with 2016 meteorology and
updated emissions data to produce new
2023 model projections and released
this new modeling in 2022 (commonly
referred to as 2016v2 modeling
platform). As explained in section III.C.
of this document, in response to
comments, the EPA further refined its
modeling in the 2016v3 modeling
platform, issued in 2023.103 Under both
the EPA’s 2011-based modeling
included in the March 2018
memorandum that New Mexico relied
upon in their SIP submission and the
EPA’s updated 2016v3 modeling, there
are receptors identified, to which New
Mexico is linked above 1 percent of the
NAAQS, as described in the next
section.104
103 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–
2023–0375.
104 The 2011 modeling relied on by NMED and
EHD in the SIP submission identified linkages to
one nonattainment receptor, the Rocky Flats-N
receptor, and the one maintenance receptor, the
Weld County Tower receptor, in 2023. See NMED
SIP Submission at 4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
b. Evaluation of Information Provided
by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
As in Step 1, NMED and EHD relied
upon the modeling released in the
EPA’s March 2018 memo, and in its July
2023 letter, NMED relied on the EPA’s
2016v3 modeling results to analyze
projected contributions to downwind
receptors. As explained in section
IV.A.2. of this document, while NMED
and EHD acknowledge the EPA’s
modeling results identifying a
contribution greater than 0.70 ppb, the
agencies do not find it appropriate to
rely on a particular threshold (i.e., 0.70
ppb) at Step 2 to determine whether a
State is linked (or significantly
contributing) to a downwind receptor in
the West, but instead they rely on a
weight of evidence approach. NMED
and EHD point to the EPA’s past
approval of Arizona’s 2008 ozone good
neighbor SIP submission, in which the
EPA approved Arizona’s SIP based on
an evaluation of receptors in California
to support the use of a weight of
evidence approach in evaluating
interstate transport and claim that the
EPA determined a weight of evidence
approach to be an appropriate
evaluation to apply in the West.105
Although NMED and EHD’s approach
to evaluating whether an upwind State
is linked to a downwind receptor differs
from the EPA’s broadly applied 4-step
interstate transport framework by
relying instead on a ‘‘weight of
evidence’’ approach, here, we evaluate
that ‘‘weight of evidence’’ methodology
NMED has chosen to apply. While the
NMED and EHD submission does not
claim to establish a linkage, and instead
postulates that it is inappropriate to
apply a uniform standard to determine
whether a State’s contributions should
be further evaluated in Step 3, the
submission does rely on a 1 percent
threshold to identify which receptors to
apply a weight of evidence analysis.
Therefore, while the NMED and EHD
submission seems to disagree in
principle with the use of a single
threshold at Step 2, they have
effectively moved to apply the same
threshold for the same purpose the EPA
would do at Step 2—rely on a 1 percent
threshold to identify receptors to which
a State is linked and therefore require
further evaluation at Step 3 to determine
whether any of the State’s contributions,
if any, are significant.
While the EPA does not disagree with
the methodology NMED and EHD used
in the submission to identify receptors
where the State is linked, the EPA
continues to find its 4-step interstate
105 NMED
PO 00000
SIP submission at 5.
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12687
transport framework to be an
appropriate and nationally consistent
approach to evaluating interstate
transport, including the application of a
contribution threshold at Step 2 of the
framework. As stated in the EPA’s final
SIP disapproval action, the EPA
disagrees with the NMED and EHD
submission that neither its nationwide
photochemical grid modeling nor the 4step interstate transport framework for
ozone can generally be applied to states
in the western region of the U.S.,
including contributions from sources in
New Mexico, and has maintained that
position consistently throughout
numerous actions.106
The NMED and EHD submission cites
the EPA’s action on Arizona’s 2008
ozone good neighbor SIP as evidence
that the EPA relied on a weight of
evidence approach when evaluating
interstate transport in the West. In that
action, the EPA considered the
collective contribution from upwind
states to monitoring sites in California
as part of the basis for approval of the
State’s submission, despite linkages
over 1 percent from Arizona to a select
few California monitoring sites. The
EPA disagrees that New Mexico’s
contribution to Colorado is comparable
to the situation addressed in the
Arizona 2008 ozone good neighbor
action. The facts that supported the
EPA’s conclusion on Arizona’s 2008
ozone good neighbor SIP were unique;
in the Disapproval action and Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA has
already explained that it rejects that a
comparable consideration is relevant for
receptors in Colorado, which the EPA
has consistently found are impacted by
the collective contribution of numerous
upwind states at levels that well exceed
the circumstances of the California sites.
See 88 FR at 9378–79 (western State
policy generally); id. at 9360 (rejecting
similar arguments in disapproving SIP
submission from Utah); see also
Response To Comments Document,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663, at 236–237.
At times the EPA has found it
appropriate to examine more closely
discreet issues for some western
states; 107 however, the EPA has
consistently applied the 4-step interstate
transport framework in western states,
as it proposes to do in this action, and
106 For a discussion of this history, see for
example 87 FR 31480–81 (proposed disapproval of
Utah SIP submission) and 87 FR 31453–56
(proposed disapproval of California SIP
submission).
107 See, e.g., 87 FR 61249, 61254–55 (October 11,
2022) (in approving Colorado’s interstate transport
SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, analyzing unique
issues associated with wintertime inversion
conditions in certain western areas).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12688
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
has previously identified ozone
transport problems in the West,
including in Colorado, that are similar
to those in the east.108
New Mexico claims that the Weld
County Tower and Rocky Flats-N
receptors are impacted by the same
magnitude of contributions from
interstate transport as the California
receptors were in the approval of the
Arizona transport SIP submission. This,
however, is not represented in the data
presented in NMED and EHD’s
submittals. Total upwind contributions
were 10 percent and 8 percent of the
projected 2023 design values at the
Rocky Flats-N and Weld County Tower
receptors, respectively, and five states
were determined to be linked at or
above 1 percent of the NAAQS. The
results show that the upwind
contributions to Colorado are
significantly greater than the upwind
contributions to the monitors evaluated
in California when taking action on
Arizona’s 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP
submission, where the total contribution
from all upwind states was 2.5 percent
and 4.4 percent of the total ozone
concentration at the two monitoring
sites in California to which Arizona
contributed greater than 1 percent.
The determination made to remove
the identified California receptors from
the Step 1 analysis, done in the context
of the less protective 2008 ozone
NAAQS, was a narrow circumstance
that does not apply in the vast majority
of receptors outside of California. The
data presented by New Mexico suggests
the circumstances that led the EPA to
remove California receptors from Step 1
do not apply to receptors in Colorado.
In previous rulemakings, for example,
the EPA has, in fact, determined that
receptors in Colorado are heavily
impacted by upwind-state contribution.
See, e.g., 82 FR 9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81
FR 71991 (October 19, 2016). The EPA
affirms, contrary to NMED’s assertion,
that the Colorado receptors that NMED
analyzed are impacted by upwind State
contributions.109 In fact, nowhere
outside California do we project that
there will be receptors having such a
low total upwind contribution as is the
case for California.110 Further, at the El
Paso UTEP receptor (Monitor ID:
481410037) which, as shown in Table
IV.B.2–1, is the receptor to which
emissions from sources in New Mexico
are linked, there are 2 states linked
above 1 percent of the standard and 6
percent of the ozone design values is
due to the collective contribution from
upwind states.
c. Results of EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
Modeling and Findings for New Mexico
As described in section I. of this
document, the EPA has performed
updated air quality modeling using the
2016v3 emissions platform to project
design values and contributions for
2023. These data were examined to
determine if the newer modeling also
indicated that New Mexico contributes
at or above the threshold of 1 percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to
any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. As shown in
IV.B.2–1, the data 111 indicates that in
2023, emissions from New Mexico
contribute greater than 1 percent of the
standard to a maintenance-only receptor
in El Paso, Texas.112 New Mexico is not
linked to any violating-monitor
receptors in 2023. Based on the 2016v3
modeling, the average and maximum
design values for the El Paso monitor in
2026 are below the level of the 2015
ozone NAAQS. In this regard, New
Mexico is not projected to be linked to
any receptors in 2026.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE IV.B.2–1—NEW MEXICO LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA’S UPDATED 2016V3 2023 MODELING
Receptor ID
Location
Nonattainment/maintenance
481410037 .....................
El Paso, TX .............................
Maintenance ............................
2023 Average
design value
(ppb)
2023 Maximum
design value
(ppb)
69.8
71.4
New Mexico
contribution
(ppb)
1.59
Therefore, based on the EPA’s
evaluation of the information submitted
by NMED and EHD, and based on the
EPA’s most recent modeling results for
2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3
emissions platform, the EPA proposes to
find that New Mexico is not linked to
a nonattainment receptor. However, the
EPA finds that New Mexico is linked at
Steps 1 and 2 to a maintenance-only
receptor in 2023. Therefore, the EPA
will proceed to evaluate NMED and
EHD’s SIP submission at Step 3 of the
4-step interstate transport framework as
it pertains to Prong 2, interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided
Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework, a state’s
emissions are further evaluated, in light
of multiple factors, including air quality
and cost considerations. NMED and
EHD’s initial SIP submission did not
conduct an analysis of emissions control
opportunities within the state, applying
either the EPA’s multifactor analysis at
Step 3 or using any other framework of
analysis. Instead, the submission
presents a three-part ‘‘weight of
evidence’’ analysis to determine no
reductions are needed beyond existing
emissions reductions efforts to satisfy
the State’s obligations with regards to
the good neighbor provision.
NMED’s July 2023 letter uses massbased emissions reductions identified
on an ozone-season wide basis derived
from the Step 3 (and Step 4 analysis for
EGUs) completed by the EPA in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan to identify
the magnitude of emissions that NMED
assumes constitutes the identification of
‘‘significant contribution’’ that must be
eliminated to address the State’s good
108 See, e.g., 87 FR 31443, 31453–57 (May 24,
2022); 83 FR 65093, 65094 (December 19, 2018); 82
FR 9155, 9157 (February 3, 2017); 82 FR 9142,
9149–50 (February 3, 2017); 81 FR 74504, 74523
(October 26, 2016); 81 FR 71991, 71993–95 (October
19, 2016).
109 Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document—2015 Ozone NAAQS Good
Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668.
110 See 88 FR at 36718 regarding contribution to
certain monitoring sites in California and its
relation to the EPA’s approval of Arizona’s 2008
ozone NAAQS transport SIP submittal.
111 Design values and contributions at individual
monitoring sites nationwide are provide in the file:’’
2016v3_Final FIP_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx’’
which is included in docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668.
112 These modeling results are consistent with the
results of a prior round of 2023 modeling using the
2016v1 emissions platform which became available
to the public in the fall of 2020 in the Revised
CSAPR Update, as noted in section I. of this
document. That modeling showed that New Mexico
had a maximum contribution greater than 0.70 ppb
to at least one nonattainment or maintenance-only
receptor in 2023. These modeling results are
included in the file ‘‘Ozone Design Values And
Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx’’ in
docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
neighbor obligations. NMED’s letter
asserts that certain compliance orders
entered in recent years would achieve
an equivalent or greater amount of NOX
emissions reduction (on a mass-basis)
than the Federal Good Neighbor Plan is
projected to require from EGUs in New
Mexico.
In this section, we evaluate the State’s
weight of evidence analysis submitted
in the SIP submission, and then in the
following section (Section IV.B.2.e of
this document) address the argument
put forward by NMED in the July 2023
letter.
As summarized in section IV.A.2. of
this document, NMED and EHD’s
weight of evidence consisted of three
parts, (1) a comparison of in-state
emissions contributions and out-of-state
contributions to the receptors with
linkages from New Mexico, (2)
consideration of topography and airflow
associated with local ozone formation in
the Denver area, and (3) an evaluation
of trends in emissions and ozone
concentrations at receptors with
linkages and western states.
Regarding the first weight of evidence
comparing in-state and out of State
emissions, the EPA disagrees that these
factors are sufficient to establish that
New Mexico’s emissions do not
significantly contribute to receptors in
any other state. While NMED and EHD
point to a relatively higher level of
contributions from non-anthropogenic,
local, or international contributions in
the West as reason for evaluating
interstate transport differently in the
West, a State is not excused from
eliminating its significant contribution
due to contributions from these sources,
where the data show that anthropogenic
emissions from upwind states also
contribute to identified receptors at
levels that indicate an interstate
contribution problem as well. As stated
in section V.C.2. of the EPA’s final SIP
Disapproval action, a State is not
excused from eliminating its significant
contribution on the basis that
international emissions also contribute
some amount of pollution to the same
receptors to which the State is linked.
This same principle applies broadly to
other arguments as to which emissions
are the ‘‘cause’’ of the problem; the good
neighbor provision established a
contribution standard, not a ‘‘but-for’’
causation standard. See Wisconsin, 938
F.3d at 323–25. The EPA’s position on
this issue is established in the SIP
Disapproval action. See 88 FR at 9378
(rejecting this argument as to
international contribution); Disapproval
action RTC at 455–58 (rejecting this
argument as to in-state contribution); id.
at 459–62 (rejecting this argument as to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
non-anthropogenic contribution). Nor
did New Mexico offer a test or standard
by which these considerations could be
applied on a principled basis to
establish when, if they were relevant
considerations, they would justify a
different approach for any particular
state. New Mexico only argued that
these considerations should excuse its
own obligations.
The submission’s second weight of
evidence factor considers the Denver
area’s topography and air flow direction.
The EPA has evaluated the information
in the submission and proposes to
determine that this evidence does not
provide sufficient reason to support
NMED and EHD submission’s
conclusion that the contributions from
New Mexico to the receptors identified
by the EPA’s modeling is not significant.
The NMED and EHD submission claims
that the EPA had concluded that
geographical features (mountains, etc.)
in and around the Denver NAA
‘‘magnify and constrain the influence of
local emissions on air quality’’ and
ozone production by citing the EPA’s
description of the region in the EPA’s
designation of the Denver NAA for the
2015 ozone standard.
The EPA evaluated this argument
thoroughly in the SIP Disapproval
action. The EPA explained, despite the
local geographical features in and
around the Denver NAA substantial
portion of the transport problem at these
receptors, on the order of 6–10 percent
(depending on individual receptor and
modeling version used) is the result of
transport from states outside of
Colorado. The EPA evaluated the
performance of its 2016v3 modeling in
all areas of the country, including in
Colorado and in the southwest (where
New Mexico is linked to an El Paso
receptor), and the Agency found the
modeling performed within parameters
and is reliable for use to inform
determinations of contribution, even in
areas of unique western topography. See
RTC 171–184. These same findings hold
true for New Mexico’s linkage, whether
assessed in relation to its contribution to
Colorado receptors in the 2011-based
modeling, or in the linkage to El Paso
found in 2016v3 modeling.
The third weight of evidence
provided in the SIP consists of
monitoring data and emissions data to
justify their conclusion that no
additional emissions reductions would
be necessary to satisfy New Mexico’s
ozone transport obligations.
The NMED and EHD submission
points to a projected downward trend of
ozone levels at monitors within the
Colorado nonattainment area from 2008
to 2018, and VOC and NOX emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12689
reductions from 2002 to 2014 in states
contributing above 1 percent of the
NAAQS to the Weld County or Rocky
Flats-N receptors. The submission did
not quantify the total anticipated
reductions in NOX and VOC emissions
from New Mexico’s existing regulatory
requirements nor did it evaluate the
impact of those reductions in
downwind air quality at the Denver area
receptors to which New Mexico was
projected to be linked in the 2011-based
modeling. In general, the air quality
modeling that the EPA has conducted
already accounts for ‘‘on-the-books’’
emissions control measures, including
the expected reductions those measures
achieve through 2023. The 2016v3
modeling, which contains updated
emissions inventories for New Mexico
and other states, established a continued
linkage from New Mexico to at least one
downwind receptor in 2023 at Steps 1
and 2, despite emissions control efforts
in the State.113 Applying the
submission’s same logic in this weight
of evidence to the linkage identified in
the EPA’s 2016v3 modeling, the El Paso
County, Texas, receptor, the EPA
identifies a similar flaw. Because a
linkage continues to occur under
projected baseline emissions levels, the
next analytical step would be to conduct
an analysis of emissions control
opportunities in the State to determine
what, if any, emissions may constitute
‘‘significant contribution’’ and therefore
should be prohibited. The EPA
explained in the SIP Disapproval action
that an alternative approach of simply
relying on emissions trends data,
without including those claimed
reductions as enforceable control
measures within a SIP, is insufficient.
88 FR at 9354, 9356, 9378–79; Response
To Comments at 329–33. Similarly,
emissions trends do not themselves
provide a principled basis for
determining what ‘‘amount’’ of
emissions constitutes ‘‘significant
contribution.’’ See 88 FR at 9375–76.
Based on this evaluation of the weight
of evidence analysis provided in NMED
and EHD’s SIP submission, the EPA
finds that the analysis is insufficient to
support the conclusion that the State
113 As the EPA explained in the final SIP
Disapproval action, the EPA views changes in
linkages between 2011-based meteorology and
2016-based meteorology not as an indication of
uncertainty in whether a State is linked at Step 2
but rather as confirmation that the State’s emissions
are substantial enough to generate linkages under
alternative meteorological data sets. As such, the
changes in linkage observed between the 2011based and 2016v3 modeling for New Mexico does
not alter the EPA’s findings or justify a less rigorous
analysis at Step 3—just as the EPA found for many
other states in connection with the Disapproval
action. See 88 FR at 9367.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12690
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
does not interfere with maintenance at
receptors in other states. The EPA’s
updated air quality analysis indicates
New Mexico is not linked to any
nonattainment receptors but is linked to
a maintenance-only receptor in El Paso,
Texas. Thus, the EPA proposes partial
disapproval of New Mexico’s
submission with respect to Prong 2.
e. NMED’s July 2023 Letter
The EPA has considered the
additional information New Mexico
provided in its July 2023 letter. At the
outset, we note that this letter did not
undergo the requisite public rulemaking
process at the State level, so the EPA
does not consider it to be either a SIP
submission itself or a supplement to
New Mexico’s existing submission. See
CAA section 110(a)(1), (2) (requiring
public notice and hearing requirements
before SIP revisions may be submitted
to EPA); id CAA section 110(i)
(prohibiting modifications of SIP
requirements except as conducted
pursuant to mandated SIP revision
procedures); id. CAA section 110(l)
(mandating analysis of all SIP revisions
to ensure such revisions do not interfere
with any applicable requirements under
the Act). See also 40 CFR part 51,
subpart F (setting forth minimum
procedural requirements for the
preparation, adoption, and submittal of
implementation plans, including
requirements of public notice and
hearing); id. Appendix V, section 2
(setting forth administrative
completeness criteria for State plan
submissions including evidence of
compliance with procedural
requirements). However, the letter was
provided to the EPA prior to this
proposed document and the EPA has
had time to consider its contents; the
EPA in its discretion will provide its
views on the relevance of the
information contained in the letter.
In the letter, NMED explains that it
believes the emissions reductions
required under certain compliance
orders in New Mexico applicable to
several identified facilities will achieve
greater emissions reductions than what
would be achieved for New Mexico’s
EGU sources if those sources were
subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. NMED asserts that the EPA
identified in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan that the control requirements for
EGUs would achieve roughly 30 tons of
ozone season NOX emissions reductions
on an annual basis through the
strategies of SCR and SNCR
optimization and upgrade of
combustion control requirements at
qualifying EGUs. In the letter, NMED
identified 236 tons of already
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
established annual NOX emissions
reductions due to two compliance
orders lodged in 2021 that it claims had
not been reflected in the EPA’s 2016v3
emissions platform, and an additional
77 tons of emissions reductions across
3 years from a consent decree with
Matador Production Company.114
According to NMED, because these
reductions are greater than the
reductions that would be achieved
under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
there is no need to issue a FIP for New
Mexico, since these other measures have
already eliminated a greater mass-based
quantity of emissions than the EPA
found needed to eliminate significant
contribution.
The Agency acknowledges and
applauds the efforts to enforce air
pollution control requirements and the
reductions in ozone-precursor emissions
that are claimed to be achieved under
these orders. However, the information
in this letter does not lead the EPA to
a different conclusion with respect to
the approvability of New Mexico’s
interstate transport SIP submission. In
addition to the fact that the letter is not
a formal SIP submission, the EPA does
not believe the information contained in
the letter (even if it were a SIP
submission) is sufficient to allow the
EPA to conclude that New Mexico
would satisfy its obligations to eliminate
significant contribution either at Step 2
or Step 3. The EPA welcomes the
opportunity to further discuss with New
Mexico the content of a future SIP
revision that would satisfy these
obligations.
Regarding the existence of a linkage at
Step 2, although the letter asserts these
reductions are additional to those
reflected in the emissions inventories
used in the 2016v3 modeling, this
conclusion is not clearly supported. The
emissions inventories used in the
modeling reflected a specific
methodology for calculating and
projecting ozone-precursor emissions
from the oil and gas sector in New
Mexico and particularly in the Permian
Basin. See Disapproval Action RTC at
117. The reductions that may be
achieved at the particular facilities
under compliance orders New Mexico
cites do not necessarily establish that
those emissions projections, including
growth factors, used in the EPA’s
modeling for the oil and gas sector are
unreliable. (In this regard, the EPA does
not view the information in the letter as
undercutting its determinations at Steps
1 and 2.)
Briefly, some additional concerns that
the EPA has identified with the
114 NMED’s
PO 00000
July 5, 2023 letter, at 1.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
approach suggested in New Mexico’s
letter include: (1) all new NOX
emissions reduction measures would
need to be adopted into the SIP; 115 (2)
any assessment of emissions reductions
would likely need to be in terms of the
ozone season of May 1 through
September 30 rather than annual
reductions and would need to be
established consistent with a relevant
baseline date and compliance date; 116
and (3) the approach would need to
account for the impact of not placing
additional NOX limitations on EGU
sources in determining the amount of
NOX emissions that New Mexico’s SIP
needs to reduce.
The Agency recognizes that states
may replace a FIP with a SIP and the
emissions controls in that SIP may differ
from those the EPA selected in its FIP.
See section VI.C. of this document.
However, the mere existence of the
compliance orders identified by NMED
does not substitute for a Step 3 analysis
and is insufficient in itself to support a
conclusion that New Mexico has
resolved its good neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Though
there is not a single, prescribed method
for how a State may conduct a Step 3
analysis, the EPA has consistently
applied Step 3 of the good neighbor
framework for ozone through a far more
comprehensive evaluation of potential
additional control technologies or
measures, on industry-wide bases, than
what New Mexico provided in its
submission. Identifying various
emissions control measures at specific
units that have been enacted at the State
level, is not analytically sufficient. And
as explained above, the EPA has
identified several additional concerns.
First, as a replacement for the emissions
control strategy that the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan would implement at Step
4 in New Mexico, the letter is
insufficient to demonstrate equivalence.
Second, as noted above, these measures
have not been included as a revision to
New Mexico’s SIP and submitted for
EPA’s approval.
f. Conclusion
The EPA is proposing to find that the
portion of NMED’s July 27, 2021 and
EHD’s June 9, 2021, SIP submission
addressing Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with
115 The EPA made this requirement clear in its
SIP Disapproval action. See 88 FR at 9343, 9376.
In its letter, NMED has not indicated its intent to
incorporate these orders and the commensurate
NOX emissions reductions into their SIP.
116 As such, the information in NMED’s letter is
inadequate to establish that these orders achieve an
equivalent amount of emissions reduction to
eliminate significant contribution as the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan would in New Mexico.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12691
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
does not meet the State’s interstate
transport obligations, because it fails to
contain the necessary provisions to
prohibit emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the EPA proposes to partially approve
these submissions with respect to Prong
1 of the good neighbor provision
regarding ‘‘significant contribution to
nonattainment.’’ The EPA in its
discretion has considered the
information in NMED’s July 2023 letter
but for the reasons explained in section
IV.B.2.d. of this document, finds this
information would not alter its
conclusions as to New Mexico.
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided
by Tennessee Regarding Step 1
At Step 1 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework, Tennessee relied
on the EPA’s 2011-based modeling
included in the March 2018
memorandum to identify nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in 2023. As
described previously in section III.C. of
this document, the EPA has updated
this modeling (2016v3) using the most
current and technically appropriate
information and has used that
information, along with its violatingmonitor receptor identification
methodology, to determine the final
good neighbor obligations for 23 other
states. To ensure parity among states,
the EPA proposes to rely on this air
quality analysis to identify
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in the 2023 analytic year.
b. Evaluation of Information Provided
by Tennessee Regarding Step 2
At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate
transport framework, Tennessee relied
on the 2011-based modeling released in
the March 2018 memorandum to
identify upwind State linkages to
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023. As described in
section III.C. of this document, the EPA
has updated its air quality analytics
(2016v3 modeling coupled with
monitoring data to inform identification
of violating-monitor receptors) to
identify upwind State contributions to
nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023. In this proposal, to
ensure parity among states, the EPA
relies on this set of analytics to identify
upwind contributions (‘‘linkages’’) to
downwind air quality problems in the
2023 analytic year using a threshold of
1 percent of the NAAQS. See section
III.D.3. of this document for explanation
of the use of 1 percent of the NAAQS.
This set of analytical data establishes
that Tennessee is linked to violatingmonitor receptors in 2023 in Dallas
County, TX. as shown in Table IV.B.3–
1, Tennessee’s maximum contribution
to a violating-monitor receptor is 0.86
ppb which is greater than 1 percent of
the ozone standard (i.e., 0.70 ppb).
Therefore, Tennessee is linked to a
downwind air quality problem at Steps
1 and 2. Because the entire technical
basis for Tennessee’s submission is that
the State is not linked at Step 2, but the
state-of-the-science analytics used to
address all other states’ obligations
establishes that this is not correct, the
EPA proposes to partially disapprove
Tennessee’s SIP submission based on
the EPA’s finding that Tennesse
contributes above the threshold to at
least one maintenance-only receptor in
another state.117
The EPA’s air quality analytics
indicate that Tennessee is not linked to
any model-projected nonattainment
receptors above 1 percent of the
NAAQS. As a result, no further
evaluation of the State’s emissions (i.e.,
multifactor analysis, including air
quality and cost considerations
emissions analysis) are required with
respect to Prong 1 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. This
comports with the State’s conclusions
with regards to Prong 1, and therefore,
the EPA proposes to partially approve
Tennessee’s SIP submission regarding
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision
regarding ‘‘significant contribution to
nonattainment.’’ 118
Tennessee references a 1 ppb
threshold in its submission, citing the
EPA’s Significant Impact Level (SIL)
Guidance as justification for the use of
a 1 ppb threshold. The EPA explained
in the final SIP Disapproval action that
the SIL Guidance cannot be relied upon
to justify an alternative threshold at
Step 2 of the interstate transport
framework for ozone. See 88 FR at 9372.
The Agency is adopting that same
position in relation to Tennessee’s
attempted reliance.
c. Results of EPA’s Step 1 and Step 2
Modeling and Findings for Tennessee
As described in section III.B. of this
document, the EPA performed updated
air quality modeling (2016v3) to project
design values and contributions for
2023. These data were examined to
determine if Tennessee contributes at or
above the threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to
any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance-only receptor. Based on
the EPA’s modeling results, Tennessee
is not linked to a model-identified
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2023 or 2026. However, as shown in
Table IV.B.3–1, the data119 indicates
that in 2023, emissions from Tennessee
contribute greater than 1 percent of the
standard to five violating-monitor
maintenance-only receptors in the
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas Core
Based Statistical Area.120 121
TABLE IV.B.3–1—TENNESSEE LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS
Receptor ID
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
481130075
481211032
484392003
480850005
484390075
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Dallas County, TX .............................
Denton County, TX ............................
Tarrant County, TX ............................
Collin County, TX ..............................
Tarrant County, TX ............................
117 To the extent the Tennessee submittal
included information regarding emissions controls
that could be interpreted as relevant to a Step 3
analysis, the EPA evaluates that information in
Section IV.C.3.d of this document.
118 Tennessee’s largest impact on any modeledprojected downwind nonattainment and
maintenance-only receptor are 0.60 ppb and 0.68
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2021 Design
value
(ppb)
Location
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
2022 Design
value
(ppb)
71
76
72
75
75
71
77
72
74
76
ppb, respectively. These values are less than 0.70
ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
119 Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD,
Appendix C, available in Docket ID No EPA–HQ–
OAR–2021–0668.
120 The EPA developed the violating-monitor
approach in response to comments on the 2016v2
modeling received on the proposed Disapproval
action and FIP. In this regard, EPA did not identify
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2021
4th high
(ppb)
2022
4th high
(ppb)
73
85
74
81
76
Contribution
(ppb)
72
77
72
73
77
0.86
0.77
0.74
0.74
0.70
violating-monitors in the contribution data
associated with the 2016v1 and 2016v3 modeling.
121 As noted in section III.D.2. of this document,
a violating-monitor receptor is not projected to have
a maximum projected design value of 71 ppb or
greater in 2023 based on the EPA’s 2016v3
modeling results. Therefore, the receptors identified
in Table IV.B.3–1 have both average and maximum
projected design values below 70 ppb.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12692
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Therefore, based on the EPA’s
evaluation of the information in
Tennessee’s SIP submission considering
the modeling results for 2023 and 2026
using the 2016v3 emissions platform
and monitoring data used to inform the
identification of violating-monitor
receptors, the EPA proposes to find that
Tennesse is not linked to a
nonattainment receptor. However, the
EPA finds that Tennessee is linked at
Steps 1 and 2 to at least one
maintenance-only receptor in another
state.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided
for Tennessee Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework, a state’s
emissions are further evaluated, in light
of multiple factors, including air quality
and cost considerations. Tennessee did
not conduct a Step 3 analysis in its SIP
submission because at the time, the
EPA’s modeling indicated the State was
not linked above 1 percent of the
NAAQS to a projected downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.
However, based on the EPA’s updated
air quality analytics, which the EPA has
used to make final determinations for all
other states, the State is currently linked
to at least one downwind violatingmonitor maintenance-only receptor. To
ensure consistency and equity across all
states in addressing good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
the EPA is evaluating the SIP
submission in the context of this same
set of air quality analytics. Tennessee’s
SIP submission does not analyze total
ozone precursors that continue to be
emitted from sources and other
emissions activity within the State,
evaluate the emissions reduction
potential of any additional controls
using cost or other metrics, nor evaluate
any resulting downwind air quality
improvements that could result from
such controls. Instead, Tennessee’s
submission includes a list of existing
emissions control programs and
measures in the State. However, the
EPA’s modeling already takes account of
such measures. Despite these existing
emissions controls, the State is linked
above 1 percent of the NAAQS to at
least one downwind violating-monitor
maintenance-only receptor.
Based on this record, the EPA finds
the State’s conclusion that its SIP
contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
in other states to lack justification.
Thus, the EPA proposes to partially
disapprove Tennessee’s SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
e. Conclusion
The EPA proposes to partially
disapprove the State’s SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2 regarding
‘‘interference with maintenance’’ of the
good neighbor provision. Additionally,
the EPA proposes to partially approve
Tennessee’s SIP submission with
respect to Prong 1 of the good neighbor
provision regarding ‘‘significant
contribution to nonattainment.’’
C. Proposed SIP Action
The EPA is proposing to partially
disapprove the portions of SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico,
and Tennessee pertaining to interstate
transport of air pollution that will
interfere with maintenance of the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states.
Under CAA section 110(c)(1),
disapproval would establish a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to promulgate a
FIP for Arizona, New Mexico, and
Tennessee to address the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to interference
with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in other states, which the
EPA proposes to do in this action,
unless the EPA approves a SIP
submission that meets these
requirements. Disapproval of a good
neighbor submission does not start a
mandatory sanctions clock.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
partially approve the portions of SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico,
and Tennessee pertaining to interstate
transport of air pollution that will
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in other states.
As discussed in greater detail in
sections VI. and VII. of this document,
the EPA is proposing to determine based
on application of the EPA’s 4-step
interstate transport framework, that
there are emissions reductions that are
required for Arizona, New Mexico, and
Tennessee to satisfy their good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The analysis on which the EPA
proposes this conclusion for these three
states is the same, nationally consistent
analytical framework on which the
Agency proposes FIP action for Kansas
and Iowa in this proposed action (see
section V.A. of this document), as well
as for the 23 states included in its March
15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for
this Action
A. Correction of the EPA’s
Determination Regarding SIP
Submissions From Iowa and Kansas and
Its Impact on the EPA’s FIP Authority
for Iowa and Kansas
In 2022, the EPA approved
infrastructure SIP submissions from
Iowa and Kansas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, which in part addressed the
good neighbor provision at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).122 The EPA concluded
that, based on the 2016v2 modeling,
which was the latest modeling results
available at the time the EPA took
action, the largest impact on any
potential downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor from each of these
states was less than 1 percent of the
NAAQS.123 As a result, the EPA found
that neither Iowa nor Kansas would
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in any other state.124
Therefore, the EPA approved the
portion of each State’s infrastructure SIP
submission that addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
Subsequent to the release of the
2016v2-based modeling and EPA’s
approval of Iowa’s and Kansas’ 2015
ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP
submission, the EPA performed updated
modeling in response to comments
received on other good neighbor
proposals in 2022, as described in
section III.C. of this document.
Additionally, as described in section
III.D.2. of this document, the EPA
updated its definition of a maintenance
receptor in recognition of comments and
other information highlighting
measured ozone levels continuing to
exceed the 2015 ozone NAAQS at many
monitoring sites throughout the country.
The approach adopted in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan now takes into
greater consideration monitoring data to
determine whether a violating
monitoring site will struggle to maintain
122 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR
19390 (April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
123 See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document 2015 Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP
Proposed Actions’’, available in Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0663.
124 Id. at 17. Based on the 2023 modeling from the
Proposed AQM TSD, Iowa was expected in 2023 to
have a 0.64 ppb impact on a potential
nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019) and a 0.58 ppb
impact at a potential maintenance receptor in Cook
County, Illinois (Site ID 170310032). Kansas was
expected in 2023 to have a 0.49 ppb impact on a
potential nonattainment receptor in Kenosha
County, Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019) and a 0.060
ppb impact at a potential maintenance receptor in
Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12693
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year.
The EPA used this new, unified set of
air quality analytics to inform its
determinations of the obligations of all
other states. Iowa and Kansas have SIP
approvals in place that are inconsistent
with that common set of information
used for other states, including those
states that are linked to the same
receptors to which Iowa and Kansas are
now shown to be linked in 2023. As
such, the approvals were in error under
CAA section 110(k)(6).
Based on this updated air quality
modeling and considering contributions
to violating-monitor receptors, both
Iowa and Kansas are now projected to
contribute more than 1 percent of the
NAAQS to downwind receptors.
Specifically, as shown in Table V.A–1,
Iowa is projected to contribute 0.90 ppb
to a maintenance-only receptor in Cook
County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001) and
0.70 ppb to a maintenance-only receptor
in Kenosha, Wisconsin (Site ID
550590019) in the 2023 analytic year.
As shown in Table V.A–2, Iowa is also
linked to three violating-monitor
receptors at locations in Illinois,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, in the 2023
analytic year.
TABLE V.A–1—IOWA LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON THE EPA UPDATED 2023 MODELING
Receptor ID
Location
Nonattainment/maintenance
170310001 .....................
550590019 .....................
Cook, Illinois ............................
Kenosha, Wisconsin ................
Maintenance-Only ...................
Maintenance-Only ...................
2023 Average
design value
(ppb)
2023 Maximum
design value
(ppb)
68.2
70.8
71.9
71.7
Iowa
contribution
(ppb)
0.90
0.70
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD
TABLE V.A–2—IOWA 2023 LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS
2021
Design value
(ppb)
Receptor ID
Location
260050003 .....................
170310032 .....................
550590025 .....................
Allegan, Michigan ....................
Cook, Illinois ............................
Kenosha, Wisconsin ................
2022
Design value
(ppb)
75
75
72
2021
4th high
(ppb)
75
75
73
2022
4th high
(ppb)
78
77
72
Iowa
contribution
(ppb)
73
72
71
1.13
0.79
0.71
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table V.A–3 shows that Kansas is
projected to contribute 0.82 ppb to the
violating-monitor receptor in Allegan,
MI (Site ID 260050003) in the 2023
analytic year.
TABLE V.A–3—KANSAS 2023 LINKAGE RESULTS BASED ON VIOLATING-MONITOR MAINTENANCE-ONLY RECEPTORS
2021
Design value
(ppb)
Receptor ID
Location
260050003 .....................
Allegan, Michigan ....................
2022
Design value
(ppb)
75
2021
4th high
(ppb)
75
2022
4th high
(ppb)
78
Kansas
contribution
(ppb)
73
0.82
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Iowa and Kansas are not projected to
be linked above 1 percent of the NAAQS
to receptors in the 2026 analytic year.
The reasons for the changes in linkages
in the 2016v3 modeling for Iowa are
driven by a combination of factors. The
EPA explained in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan that the 2016v3 modeling
contains several changes to improve its
performance from the 2016v2 modeling,
particularly in recognition of an
apparent under-prediction problem
particularly in the Upper Midwest. 88
FR at 36697; see also 88 FR at 9344–45.
The EPA made changes to better
incorporate the effects of biogenic
emissions sources, lightning, and
international/boundary conditions on
ozone levels, and observed an
improvement from a 19 percent
underprediction to a 6.9 percent under
prediction in the Upper Midwest. Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
The EPA also updated its
anthropogenic-source emissions
inventory data for all states, including
Iowa and Kansas. Id. At 36698. The
change in linkages for Kansas is
attributable to the development of the
violating-monitor receptor methodology
for identifying additional maintenanceonly receptors, coupled with updated
calculations of contribution levels
derived from the updated 2016v3
modeling.
The same air quality monitoring data
and modeling used to analyze the
analytic years 2023 and 2026 has been
used in taking final action to define the
obligations of 23 states already covered
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. As
explained in section I.A. of this
document, the Agency finds it both
reasonable—and necessary to ensuring
consistency and equity across all
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
states—to use this same analytical
information to address the obligations of
all states. These data are state-of-thescience regarding air quality conditions
and contribution levels in 2023 and
2026, reflecting improvements in the
EPA’s understanding from the 2016v2
modeling and incorporating the input of
many outside parties through their
public comments during the rulemaking
process. Using these data,
methodological choices, and analytical
findings, the EPA has determined that
Kansas and Iowa each contribute to at
least one maintenance receptor greater
than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to find that its approval of
each State’s 2015 ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission, with
regard only to the portion addressing
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12694
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), was in
error.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the
Administrator authority, without any
further submission from a state, to
revise certain prior actions, including
actions to approve SIP submissions,
upon determining that those actions
were in error.125 The EPA’s state-of-thescience analysis used in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan demonstrates that
the EPA’s prior conclusions that Iowa
and Kansas will not interfere with
maintenance in any other State in the
2023 analytic year was incorrect, which
means that the EPA’s approvals of
Iowa’s and Kansas’ good neighbor SIP
submissions were in error.
The Agency’s use of error-correction
authority in this instance is well-rooted
in the statute and case law and is
consistent with the EPA’s longstanding
practice and policy of addressing states’
good neighbor obligations using state-ofthe-science air quality analysis in a
consistent manner across all states.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides
the EPA with the authority to make
corrections to actions on CAA
implementation plans that are
subsequently found to be in error. Ass’n
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d
934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) (110(k)(6) is a
‘‘broad provision’’ enacted to provide
the EPA with an avenue to correct
errors). The key provisions of CAA
section 110(k)(6) are that the
Administrator has the authority to
‘‘determine’’ that the approval or
promulgation of a plan was ‘‘in error,’’
and when the Administrator so
determines, he may then revise the
action ‘‘as appropriate,’’ in the same
manner as the prior action.126 Moreover,
CAA section 110(k)(6) ‘‘confers
discretion on the EPA to decide if and
when it will invoke the statute to revise
a prior action.’’ 790 F.3d at 948 (CAA
section 110(k)(6) grants the ‘‘EPA the
discretion to decide when to act
pursuant to that provision’’). While
CAA section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA
with the authority to correct its own
‘‘error,’’ nowhere does this provision or
any other provision in the CAA define
what qualifies as ‘‘error.’’ Thus, the EPA
concludes that the term should be given
its plain language, everyday meaning,
which includes all unintentional,
incorrect, or wrong actions or
125 See, e.g., 86 FR 23054, 23068 (error correcting
prior approval of Kentucky’s transport SIP
submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to a
disapproval and simultaneously promulgating FIP
on the basis of the Wisconsin and New York
decisions remanding CSAPR Update and vacating
CSAPR Close-Out and new information establishing
Kentucky was linked to downwind receptors).
126 See 85 FR 73636, 73637 (November 19, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
mistakes.127 Under CAA section
110(k)(6), the EPA must make an error
determination and provide ‘‘the basis
thereof.’’ There is no indication that this
is a substantial burden for the Agency
to meet. To the contrary, the
requirement is met if the EPA clearly
articulates the error and its basis. Ass’n
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d
at 948; see also 85 FR 73636, 73638.
In this action, the EPA proposes to
determine that it made an error in
approving Kansas’ and Iowa’s good
neighbor SIP submittals. The EPA based
its prior approvals on the conclusion
that these states would not contribute
above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any
receptors in 2023, using modeling
information that has since been updated
to incorporate public comment and
better information, is no longer
considered state-of-the-science, and
produces a different result for these
states, one which is inconsistent with
the set of air quality analysis used to
inform the EPA’s evaluation of all other
states. See 88 FR 9344–45, 9349–50
(explaining updates to improve model
performance and account for recent
monitored ozone levels in response to
public comments). Had the EPA known
of this information regarding the 2023
analytic year reflected in the 2016v3
modeling and the violating-monitor
receptor identification methodology at
the time it issued those approvals, it
would not have approved Kansas or
Iowa’s submissions. Under the plain
meaning of the word ‘‘error,’’ those
approvals were in error and are in need
of correction.
Application of the final air quality
analysis and contribution information
from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in
this manner is consistent with
longstanding EPA practice and policy
under the good neighbor provision. The
EPA explained in the Disapproval
action its view that use of updated
information to inform its action on the
states included in the Disapproval
action was not prejudicial, in part
because, had the Agency approved any
of those states based on modeling that
had been superseded by more recent
and reliable information, it would
exercise error correction authority under
CAA section 110(k)(6) as it had done in
the past, to convert those approvals to
disapprovals (as it is now doing here).
See 88 FR at 9364. The EPA explained
that this would be consistent with prior
error-correction actions it has taken or
proposed under the good neighbor
provision. See id. (citing 86 FR 23056,
23067–68 (April 30, 2021) (error
correcting Kentucky’s approval to a
127 See
PO 00000
85 FR at 73637–38.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
disapproval and promulgating FIP
addressing Kentucky’s outstanding 2008
ozone NAAQS good neighbor
obligations); 87 FR 20036, 20041 (April
6, 2022) (proposing error correction for
Delaware’s 2015 ozone NAAQS SIP
approval to a disapproval based on
updated air quality modeling)).
Similarly, in the original CSAPR
rulemaking, the EPA issued error
corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6)
authority for 22 states where the EPA
had issued approvals of SIPs adopted
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), following the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in North Carolina that CAIR’s
‘‘emissions budgets were insufficiently
related to the statutory mandate’’ of the
good neighbor provision. See 76 FR
48208, 48220–22 (Aug. 8, 2011). The
D.C. Circuit upheld this exercise of
error-correction authority in EME
Homer City, 795 F.3d 118, 132–35 (D.C.
Cir. 2015).
The 22 error corrections in the
original CSAPR and for Kentucky in the
Revised CSAPR Update were prompted
by judicial decisions that invalidated
the reasoning that the EPA had used to
support the approvals. In those
circumstances, a change in the law
occurring subsequent to the time of the
EPA’s original action on the SIPs, and
which the EPA could not have been
aware of at the time that it took such
action, justified the use of errorcorrection authority. Likewise, a change
in the EPA’s understanding of the
relevant facts, even if that
understanding could not have been
known at the time of the EPA’s original
action, may equally justify the exercise
of error-correction authority.128 The
EPA does not read the statute to only
authorize the use of error correction
authority under 110(k)(6) when a
judicial decision or other change in
legal view or interpretation has been
brought to light. This would read into
the statute a term that is not there,
namely, that the EPA can only exercise
CAA section 110(k)(6) authority when
there is a ‘‘legal’’ error. As explained
previously, the statute does not say this.
It only uses the term ‘‘error’’; that term
is not defined, and its plain meaning
encompasses errors of law or fact. In
this case, while no intervening judicial
decision or change in legal
128 The court in EME Homer City noted that its
holding was limited to the circumstance where ‘‘a
federal court says that EPA lacked statutory
authority at the time to approve a SIP.’’ 795 F.3d
at 135 n.12. However, this statement was in relation
to its holding that the EPA had properly invoked
the good cause exception of the Administrative
Procedure Act to issue those error corrections
without public notice and comment. See id. The
EPA does not read this statement as a limitation on
the exercise of error-correction authority generally.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
interpretation has prompted this
proposed error correction, this is no way
diminishes the appropriate exercise of
CAA section 110(k)(6) error correction
authority in this instance. The EPA
approved Kansas’s and Iowa’s SIPs
based on a mistaken belief that they
would not contribute above the 1
percent threshold to receptors in 2023.
The updated air quality and
contribution analysis that the EPA used
to render final determinations in the
Disapproval action and Federal Good
Neighbor Plan as to all other states’
interstate transport obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS now indicates these
findings were in error. To align the
treatment of these states with all others,
it is not only reasonable, but necessary
for consistency and equity, to correct
these approvals to disapprovals. To
clarify, if Kansas and Iowa are not
required to now meet their interstate
transport obligations based on this new
information, other upwind states as well
as the downwind areas to which they
are linked could bear a greater burden
to reduce air pollution.
In making this proposed
determination, the EPA observes that all
other states whose good neighbor SIP
submissions had previously been
approved using older data are found in
the 2023 and 2026 air quality analysis
used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
to continue not to contribute above 1
percent of the NAAQS at any receptors.
Thus, there remains no need to revisit
those approvals, because the updated air
quality analysis does not indicate that
they were in error. Similarly, where the
EPA’s final analysis in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan indicated that, contrary
to prior expectations, a State is not
linked above 1 percent of the NAAQS to
any receptors, the EPA has taken action
to approve that State’s submission. This
is the case for Wyoming. See 88 FR
54998 (Aug. 14, 2023). In no case has
the EPA issued a final disapproval of a
good neighbor SIP submittal for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, only to find that
State not linked in the 2016v3 modeling
or pursuant to its violating-monitor
receptor identification methodology.
Had this circumstance arisen, consistent
with the position adopted here, the EPA
fully expects it would have acted under
CAA section 110(k)(6) to correct such a
disapproval to an approval.129
Finally, the EPA affirms in general
that it does not view all modeling
129 For the same reasons, this is not a
circumstance in which the error correction is based
in any sense on a change in agency policy. The use
of error correction authority in this case is in
keeping with the EPA’s previously stated policy
and consistent with its practices in evaluating good
neighbor obligations. See 88 FR 9364.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
results as subject to obligatory (or even
discretionary) revision under errorcorrection authority, simply because
later information shows a modeling
projection to deviate from subsequent
modeling or real-world information.
Agencies such as the EPA, regulating in
a scientifically complex arena such as
the CAA, must be able to make and rely
on modeling projections, and this
reliance is appropriate and lawful even
if modeling projections later may be
found to deviate from real-world
information. See EME Homer City, 795
F.3d at 135 (‘‘We will not invalidate
EPA’s predictions solely because there
might be discrepancies between those
predictions and the real world.’’); see
also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 318 (holding
that the EPA must implement the Act
even in the face of uncertainty).
However, the distinction here is in the
fact that, following the approval of
Kansas’ and Iowa’s SIPs, new modeling
information (and other air quality
analysis) was developed that informed,
on a nationally consistent basis, the
EPA’s determinations regarding the
good neighbor obligations of all other
states. The EPA finds that in this
circumstance, error correction under
CAA section 110(k)(6) is warranted and
appropriate.
In proposing these error corrections,
the Agency has reviewed the original
submittals from Iowa and Kansas. The
Agency finds no information, analysis,
or implementation of control measures
in these submittals that could warrant
approval on an alternative basis. The
EPA finds that neither Kansas nor Iowa
submitted an appropriate analysis of
receptor specific information that could
justify the application of a higher Step
2 screening threshold of 1 ppb. As
explained in section III.D.3. of this
document, the Agency has concluded
that it will not conduct such an analysis
for any states that failed to develop such
an analysis themselves, and further, the
Agency has explained through both its
Disapproval action and Federal Good
Neighbor Plan rulemakings that it
would not be wise policy and would
frustrate the goals of consistency and
equity among states in addressing
interstate ozone pollution, to attempt to
recognize alternative contribution
thresholds in various states. 88 FR at
9371–75. In addition, neither Kansas or
Iowa submitted an analysis of emissions
control strategies or alternative
frameworks for analysis at Step 3 that
could justify approval of their
submissions on that basis. Further,
neither State provided any enforceable
emissions control measures in their
submissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12695
Therefore, the EPA proposes to
correct its error in approving Iowa’s and
Kansas’ good neighbor SIP submissions.
This error correction under CAA section
110(k)(6) would revise the approval of
the portion of Iowa’s and Kansas’ 2015
ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submission that addresses CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to a partial disapproval
as to Prong 2 and rescinds any
statements that the portion of Iowa’s
and Kansas’ infrastructure SIP
submission that addresses CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Prong 2, satisfies the
requirements of the good neighbor
provision. The EPA’s approval of these
SIP submissions as to Prong 1 of the
good neighbor provision is not proposed
to be changed. The EPA is not proposing
to correct the elements of Iowa’s and
Kansas’ 2015 ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission that do
not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Under CAA section 110(c)(1),
finalization of this partial disapproval
would establish a 2-year deadline for
the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Kansas
and Iowa to address the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other
states, which the EPA proposes to do in
this action, unless the EPA approves a
SIP submission that meets these
requirements. Disapproval of a good
neighbor submission does not start a
mandatory sanctions clock.
As discussed in greater detail in
sections VI. and VII. of this document,
the EPA is proposing to determine based
on application of the EPA’s 4-step
interstate transport framework, that
there are emissions reductions that are
required for Iowa and Kansas to satisfy
their good neighbor obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. The analysis on
which the EPA proposes this conclusion
for Iowa and Kansas is the same,
nationally consistent analytical
framework on which the Agency
proposes FIP action for the other states
in this proposed action, as well as for
the 23 states included in its March 15,
2023, Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
B. Application of Rule in Indian
Country and Necessary or Appropriate
Finding
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA finalized its determination that
the rule is applicable in all areas of
Indian country (as defined at 18 U.S.C.
1151) within the covered 23-state
geography of the final rule, as explained
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12696
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
in section III.C.2. of that action.130 Here
in this action, the EPA proposes to
apply this determination to all areas of
Indian country within the covered
geography of this proposed rule. Certain
areas of Indian country within the
geography of the rule are or may be
subject to State implementation
planning authority. For the other areas
of Indian country within that geography,
none of the relevant tribes has as yet
sought eligibility to administer a Tribal
plan to implement the good neighbor
provision.131 Consistent with its final
determination in section III.C.2. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is
proposing to include all areas of Indian
country within the covered geography of
this rule, notwithstanding whether
those areas are currently subject to a
State’s implementation planning
authority.
With respect to areas of Indian
country not currently subject to a State’s
implementation planning authority—
i.e., Indian reservation lands and other
areas of Indian country over which the
EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction—the EPA here
proposes a ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’
finding that direct Federal
implementation of the rule’s
requirements is warranted under CAA
section 301(d)(4) and 40 CFR 49.11(a)
(the areas of Indian country subject to
this finding are referred to later as the
CAA section 301(d) FIP areas). Indian
Tribes may, but are not required to,
submit Tribal plans to implement CAA
requirements, including the good
neighbor provision. Section 301(d) of
the CAA and 40 CFR part 49 authorize
the Administrator to treat an Indian
Tribe in the same manner as a State (i.e.,
Treatment As State (TAS)) for purposes
of developing and implementing a
Tribal plan that addresses good
neighbor obligations. See 40 CFR 49.3;
see also ‘‘Indian Tribes: Air Quality
Planning and Management,’’ hereafter
‘‘Tribal Authority Rule’’ (63 FR 7254,
February 12, 1998). The EPA is
authorized to directly implement the
good neighbor provision in the 301(d)
FIP areas when it finds, consistent with
the authority of CAA section 301—
which the EPA has exercised in 40 CFR
49.11—that it is necessary or
appropriate to do so.132
130 88
FR at 36690–93.
40 CFR 49.4(a), tribes are not subject to
the specific plan submittal and implementation
deadlines for NAAQS-related requirements,
including deadlines for submittal of plans
addressing transport impacts.
132 See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 562
F.3d 1116, 1125 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that 40
CFR 49.11(a) ‘‘provides the EPA discretion to
determine what rulemaking is necessary or
131 Under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
The EPA proposes in this action to
find that it is both necessary and
appropriate to regulate all new and
existing EGU and non-EGU sources
meeting the applicability criteria set
forth in this proposed rule in the 301(d)
FIP areas that are located within the
geographic scope of coverage of the rule.
For purposes of this proposed finding,
the geographic scope of coverage of the
rule means the areas of the United
States encompassed within the borders
of the states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee.133 For
EGU applicability criteria, see section
VII.A. of this document; for non-EGU
applicability criteria, see section VII.B.
of this document. To the EPA’s
knowledge, there are two existing EGU
sources located within the 301(d) FIP
areas: the South Point Energy Center
located on the Fort Mojave Reservation,
and the Four Corners Power Plant on
the Navajo Reservation. These EGU
sources are geographically located
within the borders of Arizona and New
Mexico, respectively.134
This proposed finding is consistent
with the EPA’s prior good neighbor
rules, including the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. In prior rulemakings
under the good neighbor provision, the
EPA has included all areas of Indian
country within the geographic scope of
those FIPs, such that any new or
existing sources meeting the rules’
applicability criteria would be subject to
the rule. In the CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and the Revised CSAPR
Update, the scope of the emissions
trading programs established for EGUs
extended to cover all areas of Indian
country located within the geographic
boundaries of the covered states. In
these rules, at the time of their
promulgation, no existing units were
located in the covered areas of Indian
country; under the general applicability
criteria of the trading programs,
however, any new sources located in
such areas would become subject to the
appropriate to protect air quality and requires the
EPA to promulgate such rulemaking’’); Safe Air For
Everyone v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 05–73383,
2006 WL 3697684, at *1 (9th Cir., Dec. 15, 2006)
(‘‘The statutes and regulations that enable EPA to
regulate air quality on Indian reservations provide
EPA with broad discretion in setting the content of
such regulations.’’).
133 With respect to any non-EGU sources located
in the 301(d) FIP areas, the geographic scope of
coverage of this proposed rule does not include
those states for which the EPA proposes to find,
based on air quality modeling, that no further
linkage exists by the 2026 analytic year at Steps 1
and 2. The only State in this rule projected to be
linked in 2026 is Arizona.
134 The EPA is currently not aware of any existing
non-EGU sources that are located within the 301(d)
FIP areas within Arizona’s borders that meet the
non-EGU applicability criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
programs. Thus, the EPA established a
separate allowance allocation that
would be available for any new units
locating in any of the relevant areas of
Indian country. See, e.g., 76 FR at 48293
(describing the CSAPR methodology of
allowance allocation under the ‘‘Indian
country new unit set-aside’’ provisions);
see also id. at 48217 (explaining the
EPA’s source of authority for directly
regulating in relevant areas of Indian
country as necessary or appropriate).
Further, in any action in which the EPA
subsequently approved a State’s SIP
submission to partially or wholly
replace the provisions of a CSAPR FIP,
the EPA has clearly delineated that it
will continue to administer the Indian
country new unit set aside for sources
in any areas of Indian country
geographically located within a State’s
borders and not subject to that State’s
CAA planning authority, and the State
may not exercise jurisdiction over any
such sources. See, e.g., 82 FR 46674,
46677 (October 6, 2017) (approving
Alabama’s SIP submission establishing a
State CSAPR trading program for ozone
season NOX, but providing, ‘‘The SIP is
not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction.’’).
For this proposed rulemaking, the
EPA proposes to take the same approach
with respect to regulating sources in the
301(d) FIP areas as was finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA
finds this approach is necessary and
appropriate for several reasons. First, as
an extension of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the purpose of this rule
is to address the interstate transport of
ozone on a national scale. Consistent
with its findings regarding the broad
upwind region covered by the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes
to extend into the geography of these
five additional states a uniform level of
emissions-control stringency. (See
section VI. of this document for a
discussion of the EPA’s determination
of control stringency for this proposal.)
Within this approach, consistency in
rule requirements across all
jurisdictions is vital in ensuring the
remedy for ozone transport is, in the
words of the Supreme Court, ‘‘efficient
and equitable,’’ 572 U.S. 489, 519. In
particular, as the Supreme Court found
in EME Homer City Generation,
allocating responsibility through
uniform levels of control across the
entire upwind geography is ‘‘equitable’’
because, by imposing uniform cost
thresholds on regulated States, the
EPA’s rule subjects to stricter regulation
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
those States that have done relatively
less in the past to control their
pollution. Upwind States that have not
yet implemented pollution controls of
the same stringency as their neighbors
will be stopped from free riding on their
neighbors’ efforts to reduce pollution.
They will have to bring down their
emissions by installing devices of the
kind in which neighboring States have
already invested. Id.
In the context of addressing regionalscale ozone transport in this proposal, a
uniform level of stringency that extends
to and includes the 301(d) FIP areas
geographically located within the
boundaries of the linked upwind states
carries significant force. Failure to
include all such areas within the scope
of the rule creates a significant risk that
these areas may be targeted for the siting
of facilities emitting ozone-precursor
pollutants to avoid the regulatory costs
that would be imposed under this
proposed rule in the surrounding areas
of State jurisdiction. Electricity
generation or the production of other
goods and commodities may become
more cost-competitive at any EGUs or
non-EGUs not subject to the rule but
located in a geography where all
surrounding facilities in the same
industrial category are subject to the
rule. For instance, the affected EGU
sources located on the Fort Mojave
Reservation of the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe and the Navajo Reservation of the
Navajo Nation are both in areas covered
by the interconnected western
electricity grid. The EGU source on the
Fort Mojave Reservation is owned by a
large merchant power supplier and the
EGU source on the Navajo Reservation
is jointly owned by entities that supply
electricity to customers in several states.
It is both necessary and appropriate, in
the EPA’s view, to avoid creating, via
this proposed rule, a structure of
incentives that may cause generation or
production—and the associated NOX
emissions—to shift into the 301(d) FIP
areas to escape regulation needed to
eliminate interstate transport under the
good neighbor provision.
The EPA finds it is appropriate to
propose direct Federal implementation
of the proposed rule’s requirements in
the 301(d) FIP areas at this time rather
than at a later date. Tribes generally
have the opportunity to seek TAS and
to undertake Tribal implementation
plans under the CAA. To date, no tribe
relevant to an existing EGU in the
301(d) FIP areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (or for any other NAAQS) has
expressed an intent to do so for
purposes of regulating interstate
transport of air pollution under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D). Nor has the EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
heard such intentions from any other
tribe within the geography of this rule,
and it would not be reasonable to expect
tribes to undertake that planning effort,
particularly when no existing sources
are currently located on their lands.
Further, the EPA is mindful that under
court precedent, the EPA and states
generally bear an obligation to fully
implement any required emissions
reductions to eliminate significant
contribution under the good neighbor
provision as expeditiously as
practicable and in alignment with
downwind areas’ attainment schedule
under the Act. As discussed in section
VII.A. of this document, the EPA
anticipates implementing certain
required emissions reductions by the
2025 ozone season, and, for Arizona,
additional required emissions
reductions by the 2027 ozone season.
Absent this proposed Federal
implementation plan in the 301(d) FIP
areas, NOX emissions from any existing
or new EGU or non-EGU sources located
in, or locating in, the 301(d) FIP areas
within the covered geography of the rule
would remain unregulated and could
potentially increase. This would be
inconsistent with the EPA’s overall goal
of aligning good neighbor obligations
with the downwind areas’ attainment
schedule and to achieve emissions
reductions as expeditiously as
practicable.
Further, the EPA recognizes that
Indian country, including the 301(d) FIP
areas, is often home to communities
with environmental justice concerns,
and these communities may bear a
disproportionate level of pollution
burden as compared with other areas of
the United States. The EPA’s draft
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2022–
2026 135 includes an objective to
promote environmental justice at the
Federal, Tribal, state, and local levels
and states: ‘‘Integration of
environmental justice principles into all
EPA activities with Tribal governments
and in Indian country is designed to be
flexible enough to accommodate EPA’s
Tribal program activities and goals,
while at the same time meeting the
Agency’s environmental justice goals.’’
By including all areas of Indian country
within the covered geography of the
rule, the EPA is advancing
environmental justice, lowering
pollution burdens in such areas, and
preventing the potential for ‘‘pollution
havens’’ to form in such areas as a result
of facilities seeking to locate there to
avoid the requirements that would
135 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/
2021-10/fy-2022-2026-epa-draft-strategic-plan.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12697
otherwise apply outside of such areas
under this proposed rule.
Therefore, to ensure timely alignment
of all needed emissions reductions with
the larger timetable of this proposed
rule, to ensure equitable distribution of
the upwind pollution reduction
obligation across all upwind
jurisdictions, to avoid perverse
economic incentives to locate sources of
ozone-precursor pollution in the 301(d)
FIP areas, and to deliver greater
environmental justice, including
protection for Tribal communities in
line with Executive Order 14096:
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment
to Environmental Justice for All,136 the
EPA proposes to find it both necessary
and appropriate that all existing and
new EGU and non-EGU sources that are
located in the 301(d) FIP areas within
the geographic boundaries of the
covered states, and which would be
subject to this rule if located within
areas subject to State CAA planning
authority, should be included in this
rule. The EPA proposes this finding
under section 301(d)(4) of the Act and
40 CFR 49.11. Further, to avoid
‘‘unreasonable delay’’ in promulgating
this FIP, as required under § 49.11, the
EPA concludes it is appropriate to make
this proposed finding now, to align
emissions reduction obligations for any
covered new or existing sources in the
section 301(d) FIP areas with the larger
schedule of reductions under this
proposed rule. Because all other covered
EGU and non-EGU sources within the
geography of this proposed rule would
be subject to emissions reductions of
uniform stringency beginning in the
2025 ozone season, and as necessary to
fully and expeditiously address good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, there is little benefit to be had
by not proposing to include the 301(d)
FIP areas in this rule now and a
potentially significant downside to not
doing so.
The EPA will continue to consult
with the governments of the Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe of the Fort Mojave
Reservation, the Navajo Nation of the
Navajo Reservation, and any other tribe
wishing to continue consultation,
during the comment period for this
proposal. The EPA invites comment on
this proposed finding.
136 Executive Order 14096 (April 21, 2023):
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/
04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nationscommitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12698
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX
Emissions Reduction Potential To
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for
the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
This section describes the EPA’s
methodology at Step 3 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework for
identifying upwind emissions that
constitute ‘‘significant’’ contribution or
interference with maintenance for the
five states identified in the previous
sections. The EPA proposes to apply the
same analysis to these states that it
applied for 23 states in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.137 To summarize this
analysis: The EPA applies a multi-factor
test at Step 3. The multi-factor test
considers cost, available emissions
reductions, downwind air quality
impacts, and other factors (e.g., controls
that have been widely adopted by like
sources in other upwind states and/or in
downwind areas with ozone attainment
problems) to determine the appropriate
level of control stringency that would
eliminate significant contribution to
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors. The selection of
a uniform level of NOX emissions
control stringency across all of the
linked states, reflected by representative
cost per ton of emissions reduction
figures for EGUs and the identified units
in non-EGU industries, were principal
findings from the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. These findings serve to
apportion the reduction responsibility
among collectively contributing upwind
states. The EPA proposes to apply these
same findings to five additional states.
As explained in section I.A. of this
document, these states are being
addressed in this separate rulemaking
due to a happenstance resulting from
rulemaking procedures and the timing
of development of information that
informed action on other states. As
such, these states are not substantively
situated differently in a meaningful or
material way from any of the other
states for which the EPA has already
rendered a final determination of the
appropriate level of emissions-control
stringency to eliminate significant
contribution for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Had the EPA originally
included these five states in its
multifactor test considering emissions
reduction potential across all linked
states for this 2015 ozone NAAQS, the
Agency would have made the same
control stringency determination due to
the comparable air quality
circumstances and cost-effective
emissions reduction opportunities
137 See
88 FR at 36718.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:06 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
across the linked upwind-state
geography.
The EPA therefore proposes to extend
these findings on a uniform basis to
these five additional states. This
approach to quantifying upwind State
emission-reduction obligations using a
uniform level of control stringency was
reviewed by the Supreme Court in EME
Homer City Generation, which held that
using such an approach to apportion
emissions reduction responsibilities
among upwind states that are
collectively responsible for downwind
air quality impacts ‘‘is an efficient and
equitable solution to the allocation
problem the good neighbor provision
requires the Agency to address.’’ 572
U.S. at 519.
In the final Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA’s analysis focused on
NOX as the primary ozone-precursor
pollutant of concern.138 The EPA then
conducted four analytical steps as part
of the Step 3 multifactor test to arrive
at an appropriate level of stringency that
eliminated significant contribution and/
or interference with maintenance. These
were: (1) identify levels of uniform NOX
control stringency; (2) evaluate potential
NOX emissions reductions associated
with each identified level of uniform
control stringency; (3) assess air quality
improvements at downwind receptors
for each level of uniform control
stringency; and (4) select a level of
control stringency considering the
identified cost, available NOX emissions
reductions, and downwind air quality
impacts, while also ensuring that
emissions reductions do not
unnecessarily over-control upwind-state
emissions relative to the contribution
threshold applied at Step 2 or the
resolution of downwind receptors at
Step 1. The remainder of this section
summarizes the application of this
analytical framework to the EGU and
138 As described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan (88 FR 36719) the EPA examined the results
of the contribution modeling performed for that rule
to identify the portion of the ozone contribution
attributable to anthropogenic NOX emissions versus
VOC emissions from each linked upwind State to
each downwind receptor. From that analysis, the
Agency concluded that the vast majority of the
downwind air quality areas addressed by the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan are primarily NOXlimited, rather than VOC-limited. Therefore, the
EPA found that regulation of
NOX emissions was necessary while regulation of
VOCs as an ozone precursor in upwind states was
not necessary to eliminate significant contribution
or interference with maintenance in downwind
areas in that rule. Considering that many of the
downwind locations are the same in this
rulemaking, and that the EPA is relying on the same
air quality modeling, the EPA affirms that the
conclusions about regulation of NOX emissions
relative to VOCs from the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan apply in this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
non-EGU sources in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
For both EGUs and non-EGUs, section
VI.B. of this document describes the
available NOX emissions controls that
the EPA evaluated for this proposed rule
and their representative cost levels (in
2016$). Section VI.C. of this document
discusses the EPA’s application of that
information to assess emissions
reduction potential of the identified
control stringencies. Finally, section
VI.D. of this document describes the
EPA’s assessment of associated air
quality impacts and proposed
determination of significant
contribution. Section VI.D. of this
document also describes the analysis
the Agency conducted to evaluate if its
selected control strategy would result in
over-control for any upwind state, that
is, whether an upwind State could have
reduced its air quality contributions
below the 1 percent of NAAQS air
quality contribution threshold at a lower
level of emissions-control stringency
than identified in the GNP.
As in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA applies its multi-factor
test at Step 3 to EGUs and non-EGUs on
consistent but parallel tracks. Following
the conclusions of the EGU and nonEGU multi-factor tests, the identified
reductions for EGUs and non-EGUs are
combined and collectively analyzed to
assess their effects on downwind air
quality and whether the proposed rule
achieves a full remedy to eliminate
‘‘significant contribution’’ while
avoiding over-control.
As described in section III.D.4. of this
document and described in this section,
the EPA proposes that it is reasonable
and equitable to apply the same
nationally-determined level of uniform
emissions-control stringency already
determined in the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for 23 states to these five
additional states. The EPA is aware of
no state-specific circumstances as to any
of these five states that would warrant
different treatment or analysis than has
already been applied on a nationwide
basis in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
B. Summary of Control Stringency
Levels
1. EGUs
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan
analyzed five NOX emissions control
strategies at EGUs: (1) fully operating
existing SCR, including both optimizing
NOX removal by existing operational
SCRs and turning on and optimizing
existing idled SCRs; (2) installing stateof-the-art NOX combustion controls; (3)
fully operating existing SNCRs,
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
including both optimizing NOX removal
by existing operational SNCRs and
turning on and optimizing existing idled
SNCRs; (4) installing new SNCRs; and
(5) installing new SCRs.
In prior good neighbor rules, the EPA
typically evaluated the potential for
emissions reductions from generation
shifting at the representative cost for
each mitigation technology. This is
because shifting generation to lower
NOX emitting or zero-emitting EGUs
may occur in response to economic
factors. As the cost of emitting NOX
increases, it becomes increasingly costeffective for units with lower NOX rates
to increase generation, while units with
higher NOX rates reduce generation.
Because the cost of generation is unitspecific, this generation shifting occurs
incrementally on a continuum.
However, for reasons described in the
preamble for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA determined that it was
not appropriate to incorporate emissions
reductions from generation shifting.139
For the same reasons, the EPA does not
quantify emissions reductions from
generation shifting for the states covered
by this proposal.
It is equitable and reasonable to
continue to use the same cost,
performance, and timelines for EGU
NOX mitigation strategies that were
determined for EGUs for the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan 140 for the five
additional states, as described in section
III.D.4. of this document. The analysis of
NOX emissions controls was completed
recently and there have been no
meaningful changes in the factors
considered since that analysis was
completed.141 Table VI.B.1–1
summarizes the cost, performance, and
availability dates based on the
implementation timelines for the EGU
NOX mitigation strategies.
Under the analysis in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan and supported by
technical information provided in the
EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final
Rule TSD and its Addendum included
12699
in the docket for this rulemaking, the
EPA finds that the timeframe for
optimizing existing SCR and SNCR
controls is about 2 months or less, and
the timeframe for upgrading combustion
controls is about 6 months.
Additionally, for the same reasons
described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA proposes that the first
season for installing new SNCRs should
be aligned with the first season of
feasible installation for SCRs, i.e., the
2027 ozone season.142 Finally, for the
same reasons that the EPA described in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the
EPA proposes that SCR installation at
EGUs can occur over a 36–48 month
period, taking into account the fleetwide
nature of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan (including this supplemental
rulemaking to expand the Plan’s
coverage to five additional states, which
considers emissions reductions
commensurate with retrofitting SCR on
only an additional seven units in
Arizona).143
TABLE VI.B.1–1—SUMMARY OF EGU NOX MITIGATION STRATEGIES, REPRESENTATIVE COSTS, TIMELINES, AND
APPLICABILITY
Representative
cost
(2016$)
Implementation
timeline
First ozone season
available for
supplemental states
Fully Operating Existing SCR
(optimizing operating and
idled SCR).
$1,600/ton ...........
<2 months ............
2025 ............................
Covered fossil-fired units with
SCR.
Installing State-Of-The-Art
Combustion Controls.
$1,600/ton ...........
6 to 8 months .......
2025 ............................
Fully Operating Existing SNCR
(optimizing operating and
idled SNCR).
Installing New SNCR ...............
$1,800/ton ...........
<2 months ............
2025 ............................
Covered coal steam units lacking state-of-the-art combustion controls.
Covered fossil-fired units with
SNCR.
$6,700/ton ...........
16 months ............
2027 ............................
Installing New SCR ..................
$11,000/ton (coal
steam); $7,700
(O/G steam).
36 to 48 months ...
2027 (with phase in
over 2027 and
2028).
Mitigation strategy
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
2. Non-EGUs
For the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA developed an analytical
framework to facilitate decisions about
which industries and emissions unit
types in the non-electric generating unit
‘‘sector’’ may have a share of upwind
states’ significant contribution to
139 88
FR 36731.
FR 36720–36732.
141 See the EGU NO Mitigation Strategies Final
X
Rule TSD Addendum.
142 88 FR 36726.
140 88
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
Unit applicability
FR 36727.
units in Arizona, the only State in this
proposal linked in 2026, meet this criterion, but the
mitigation strategy is included in the table for
completeness.
144 No
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Coal steam: 0.08; O/G Steam:
0.03; Combustion Turbine:
0.03; Combined Cycle:
0.012.
0.199.
Up to a 25% reduction in
emissions rate if SNCR
idled.
Covered CFB units of any size Up to a 50% reduction in
emissions rate for CFB
and other coal steam units
units; up to a 25% reduction
under 100 MW lacking postin emissions rate for other
combustion NOX controls 144.
units.
Covered coal steam units (ex- 0.05 for coal steam units; 0.03
cept CFB) great than 100
for O/G steam units.
MW; O/G Steam units at
least 100 MW and with at
least 150 tons NOX emissions on average for the
2019 to 2021 ozone seasons.
nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. A February 28, 2022
memorandum documents the analytical
framework that the EPA used to initially
identify, through a regional-scale,
multistate screening assessment
(Screening Assessment), industries and
emissions unit types for which there
143 88
NOX emissions rate
(lb/MMBtu)
appeared to be cost-effective reductions
having the greatest potential for air
quality benefit in downwind states.145
From this Screening Assessment, the
EPA further developed its proposed set
of emissions control strategies for nonEGUs that would fully eliminate
significant contribution from the
145 The memorandum titled Screening
Assessment of Potential Emissions Reductions, Air
Quality Impacts, and Costs from Non-EGU
Emissions Units for 2026 is available in the docket
here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0668-0150.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12700
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
upwind states.146 Following
consideration of public comment, in the
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan the
EPA finalized emissions control
requirements for certain non-EGU
sources. The EPA prepared a
memorandum summarizing the
emissions unit types, applicability
criteria, emissions limits, estimated
number of emissions units captured by
the applicability criteria, and estimated
emissions reductions and costs.147 The
EPA updated its technical analysis of
non-EGU industry sectors and
responded to public comments.148 The
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan
established a uniform set of emissions
control requirements for non-EGU
sources in nine industries for each of
the 20 states for which the EPA found
continuing contribution at or above 1
percent of the NAAQS through the 2026
ozone season. See generally 88 FR at
36817–38.
As with its EGU analysis at Step 3, the
EPA finds that it is equitable and
reasonable to extend these same
findings for the relevant non-EGU
sources in the State of Arizona, which
is the only state covered in this action
for which the EPA continues to find a
continuing contribution at or above 1
percent of the NAAQS through the 2026
ozone season. Several points that the
EPA observed in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan bear emphasis in
explaining why it is reasonable for
Arizona’s sources to be subject to the
same Step 3 analysis and non-EGU
control requirements as the other
covered states. There is an equitable
concern that supports an approach by
which direct competitors within
identified industries within the
geography of linked upwind states are
held to the same level of emissions
performance, as this avoids the potential
for emissions shifting or competitive
disadvantages brought on by assigning
transport obligations to individual
sources that are not borne by their
competitors in other linked upwind
states. Thus, this has informed how the
EPA has consistently approached
assessing emissions control
opportunities in prior ozone transport
rulemakings, and in particular, the
analysis of emissions control
opportunities on an industry-wide basis.
For example, in CSAPR, we focused on
a single industry, the power sector (or
EGUs), because we found that in
general, across this industry, there were
highly cost-effective emissions control
opportunities compared to other
industries (based on our assessment at
that time). See 76 FR at 48249.
Similarly, in the NOX SIP Call, we also
focused on assessing emissions-control
opportunities by industry (using NAICScode industry classifications as we do in
this action), while recognizing that
boilers are a unit type that could have
cost-effective emissions reductions
across multiple industries (as we again
recognize in this action). See 63 FR at
57399. The EPA explained in the NOX
SIP Call that this approach ‘‘assure[d]
equity among the various source
categories and the industries they
represent,’’ id.
It was precisely this analytical
framework that the Supreme Court
upheld in EME Homer City, noting the
‘‘thorny causation problem’’ of interstate
pollution transport, 572 U.S. at 514, the
need to account for ‘‘the vagaries of the
wind,’’ id. at 497, and the complexity of
allocating responsibility among
potentially large groups of states who
may each contribute to one another’s air
quality problems as well as to multiple
other states in varying degrees, id. 514–
16.
Applying these principles here, the
EPA views it as reasonable to conclude
that the Screening Assessment
methodology continues to serve as a
reasonable and reliable method for
distinguishing potentially impactful
industries from non-impactful
industries in Arizona, just as in the
other states for purposes of defining
good neighbor obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS in the context of a FIP.
The Screening Assessment identified
nine out of approximately 40 industries
for further evaluation. That these were
found to be the nine potentially most
impactful industries is not surprising, as
each of these industries typically
involve large-scale fossil-fuel
combustion as part of their
manufacturing or other processes, have
historically had high NOX emissions as
a result, and are projected to continue
to have relatively high NOX emissions
into the future. For existing as well as
any new sources that come to be located
in Arizona, it therefore makes sense to
require these sources to meet the same
emissions control requirements that the
same types of sources are subject to in
the covered states that have been found
to have non-EGU emissions that
significantly contribute to other states’
problems attaining and maintaining the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA therefore proposes to apply
the same Step 3 non-EGU analytical
framework for Arizona as applied in the
covered states whose sources are subject
to these requirements. Table VI.B.2–1
summarizes the industries, emissions
unit types, and applicability
requirements, and Table VI.B.2–2
summarizes the industries, emissions
unit types, form of proposed emissions
limits, and proposed emissions limits.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE VI.B.2–1—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIES, NON-EGU EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, AND APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Industry
Emissions unit type
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing .................
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
Kilns ....................................
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...........
Reheat Furnaces ................
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing ..........................
Furnaces ............................
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; Metal
Ore Mining; Basic Chemical Manufacturing; Petroleum
and Coal Products Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Mills.
Boilers ................................
146 See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support
Document for the Proposed Rule, available at
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQOAR-2021-0668-0145.
147 The memorandum titled Summary of Final
Rule Applicability Criteria and Emissions Limits for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
Applicability requirements
Nameplate rating of ≥1000 braking horsepower (bhp).
Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per
year (tpy) or more of NOX.
Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of NOX.
Directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of NOX.
Design capacity of ≥100 mmBtu/hr.
Non-EGU Emissions Units, Assumed Control
Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions
Limits, and Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions
Reductions, and Costs is available in the docket
here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
148 See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support
Document for the Final Rule, available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2021-0668-1110.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12701
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.B.2–1—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIES, NON-EGU EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, AND APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS—
Continued
Industry
Emissions unit type
Applicability requirements
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators .......................
Combustors or Incinerators
Design capacity ≥250 tons of waste/day.
TABLE VI.B.2–2—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, FORM OF PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS,
AND PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS
Industry
Form of proposed
emissions limits
Emissions unit type
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing
Proposed emissions limits
Reciprocating Internal
Grams per horseCombustion Engines.
power per hours (g/
hp-hr).
Kilns ............................ Pounds per ton (lbs/
ton) of clinker.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing.
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing .........
Reheat Furnaces ........
lbs/mmBtu a ................
Furnaces ....................
lbs/ton glass produced
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; Metal Ore Mining; Basic Chemical
Manufacturing; Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators ......
Boilers ........................
lbs/mmBtu a ................
Combustors or Incinerators.
ppmvd on a 24-hour
averaging period
and ppmvd on a 30day averaging period.
a Heat
Four Stroke Rich Burn: 1.0 g/hp-hr; Four
Stroke Lean Burn: 1.5 g/hp-hr; Two Stroke
Lean Burn: 3.0 g/hp-hr.
Long Wet: 4.0 lb/ton; Long Dry: 3.0 lb/ton;
Preheater: 3.8 lb/ton; Precalciner: 2.3 lb/
ton; Preheater/Precalciner: 2.8 lb/ton.
Test and set limit based on installation of
Low-NOX Burners.
Container Glass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton; Pressed/
Blown Glass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton; Fiberglass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton; Flat Glass Furnace: 7 lb/ton.
Coal: 0.20 lb/mmBtu; Residual Oil: 0.20 lb/
mmBtu; Distillate Oil: 0.12 lb/mmBtu; Natural Gas: 0.08 lb/mmBtu.
110 ppmvd on a 24-hour averaging period;
105 ppmvd on a 30-day averaging period.
input limit.
C. Control Stringencies Represented by
Cost Threshold ($ per Ton) and
Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
For EGUs, as discussed in section
VI.A. of this document, the multi-factor
test considers increasing levels of
uniform control stringency in
combination with considering total NOX
reduction potential and corresponding
air quality improvements. The EPA
evaluated EGU NOX emissions controls
that are widely available (described
previously in section VI.B.1. of this
document), that were assessed in
previous rules to address ozone
transport, and that have been
incorporated into State planning
requirements to address ozone
nonattainment.
This analysis generated a selected
representative cost threshold of $11,000
per ton, associated with the retrofit of
SCR on coal-fired EGUs currently
lacking that technology. 88 FR at 36745.
All cost values discussed in this section
for EGUs are in 2016 dollars.149
The following tables summarize the
emissions reduction potentials (in ozone
season tons) from these emissions
controls across the affected
jurisdictions. Table VI.C.1–1 focuses on
near-term emissions controls while
Table VI.C.1–2 includes emissions
controls with extended implementation
timeframes.
TABLE VI.C.1–1—EGU OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS AND REDUCTION POTENTIAL (TONS)—NEAR TERM *
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of
technology inclusion
Baseline
2025 OS NOX
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
State
Arizona .............................................................................................................
Iowa .................................................................................................................
Kansas .............................................................................................................
New Mexico .....................................................................................................
Tennessee .......................................................................................................
149 The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the
proposal and final Revised CSAPR Update RIA, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
8,479
9,867
5,510
2,241
4,064
well as the proposal and final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan RIA, to be consistent with those
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SCR
optimization
84
0
747
31
81
SCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
153
54
747
31
81
SCR/SNCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
284
115
747
31
81
recent actions we continued to use 2016 dollars as
the dollar year for presenting costs and benefits.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12702
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI.C.1–1—EGU OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS AND REDUCTION POTENTIAL (TONS)—NEAR TERM *—Continued
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of
technology inclusion
Baseline
2025 OS NOX
State
Total ..........................................................................................................
SCR
optimization
30,162
943
SCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
1,066
SCR/SNCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
1,257
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
TABLE VI.C.1–2—EGU OZONE-SEASON EMISSIONS AND REDUCTION POTENTIAL (TONS)—EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATION
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of technology inclusion
Baseline
2026 OS NOX
State
SCR
optimization
SCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
SCR/SNCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades
SCR/SNCR
optimization
+ combustion
control
upgrades +
SCR/SNCR
retrofits
Arizona .................................................................................
Iowa ......................................................................................
Kansas .................................................................................
New Mexico .........................................................................
Tennessee ...........................................................................
6,098
9,773
5,510
2,038
4,064
84
0
747
31
81
153
0
747
31
81
284
60
747
31
81
2,085
5,747
2,398
361
81
Total ..............................................................................
27,484
943
1,012
1,203
10,672
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
2. Non-EGUs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
As detailed in the memorandum
titled, Summary of Final Rule
Applicability Criteria and Emissions
Limits for Non-EGU Emissions Units,
Assumed Control Technologies for
Meeting the Final Emissions Limits, and
Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions
Reductions, and Costs 150 prepared for
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the
EPA uses the 2019 emissions inventory,
the list of emissions units estimated to
be captured by the applicability criteria,
the assumed control technologies that
would meet the emissions limits, and
information on control efficiencies and
default cost/ton values from the control
measures database 151 to estimate NOX
emissions reductions and costs for this
proposal. The estimates using the 2019
inventory and information from the
control measures database identify
proxies for emissions units, as well as
emissions reductions, and costs
150 Available in the docket here: https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR2021-0668-0956.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
associated with the assumed control
technologies that would meet the
emissions limits. Emissions units
subject to the proposed rule emissions
limits may differ from those estimated
in this assessment, and the estimated
emissions reductions from and costs to
meet the proposed rule emissions limits
may also differ from those estimated in
this assessment. The costs do not
include monitoring, recordkeeping,
reporting, or testing costs. As with the
analysis for non-EGUs described in
section VI.B.2. of this document, this
proposal simply applies the same
analysis that was conducted for these
industries in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, considering data specific to the
one State included in this action,
Arizona, that is proposed to be subject
to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s
non-EGU emissions control
requirements.
Table VI.C.2–1 of this document
summarizes the industries, estimated
emissions unit types, and assumed
control technologies that meet the
proposed emissions limits. Table
VI.C.2–2 of this document summarizes
the industries, estimated emissions unit
types, assumed control technologies that
meet the proposed emissions limits, and
the estimated number of control
installations in Arizona. Table VI.C.2–3
summarizes the industries, estimated
emissions unit types, assumed control
technologies that meet the proposed
emissions limits, annual costs (2016$),
and ozone season emissions reductions.
The average cost per ton is $5,457 and
is estimated using annual emissions. As
the EPA discussed in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the cost estimates for all
non-EGU industries were generally
commensurate with the representative
uniform cost threshold of $11,000 per
ton selected for EGUs. See 88 FR at
36746–47.
151 More information on the control measures
database can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/
economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollutionregulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
12703
TABLE VI.C.2–1—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, ASSUMED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
THAT MEET PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS
Industry
Emissions unit type
Assumed control technologies that meet proposed
emissions limits
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ............................
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
Kilns ....................................
Reheat Furnaces ................
Furnaces ............................
Boilers ................................
.............................................
Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean Burn) a; SCR (4cycle Lean Burn); NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn).
SNCR.
LNB.
LNB.
LNB + FGR (Natural Gas, No Coal or Oil).
SCR (Any Coal, Any Oil).
Combustors or Incinerators
ANSCR b; LNtm and SNCR
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing .................
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...........
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing ..........................
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing ...........
Metal Ore Mining ..............................................................
Basic Chemical Manufacturing .........................................
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ..................
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills ..................................
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators .......................
b,c.
a Some emissions units, or engines, in the 2019 inventory had Source Classification Codes indicating that the units were reciprocating without
specifying the type of engine. The EPA assumed Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) or layered combustion as the control for these emissions units.
b Municipal Waste Combustor Workgroup Report, prepared by the Ozone Transport Commission Stationary and Area Sources Committee, Revised April 2022.
c Covanta has developed a proprietary low NO
TM) that involves staging of combustion air. The system is a
X combustion system (LN
trademarked system and Covanta has received a patent for the technology.
TABLE VI.C.2–2—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, ASSUMED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
THAT MEET PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS, ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CONTROL INSTALLATIONS *
Industry/industries
Assumed control technologies that meet
proposed emissions limits
Emissions unit type
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas ...
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
NSCR or Layered Combustion (Reciprocating).
Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean
Burn).
SCR (4-cycle Lean Burn) ........................
NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn) ......................
Estimated
number of
existing
units per
assumed
control
........................
6
........................
........................
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not reflect a final determination that
identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
TABLE VI.C.2–3—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, ASSUMED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES,
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (2016$), OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN 2026 *
Industry/industries
Emissions unit type
Assumed control technologies that
meet proposed emissions limits
Pipeline Transportation of Natural
Gas.
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engine.
Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean
Burn).
Annual costs
(2016$)
4,309,893
Ozone
season
emissions
reductions
329
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not reflect a final determination that
identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU
NOX Reductions, and Air Quality
As described in section V.A. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble,
to determine the emissions that are
significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance, the EPA applied the
multi-factor test to EGUs and non-EGUs
on separate but parallel tracks,
considering for each the relationship of
cost, available emissions reductions,
and downwind air quality impacts.
Specifically, for each sector, the EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
finalized a determination regarding the
fact that a uniform NOX control
stringency was appropriate and
identified an appropriate level of
uniform NOX control stringency that
would eliminate significant contribution
from each upwind state. Based on the
air quality results presented in section
V.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble, the EPA found that the
emissions control strategies that were
identified and evaluated in sections V.B.
and V.C. of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan preamble were cost-effective and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
delivered meaningful air quality
benefits through projected reductions in
ozone levels across the linked
downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the relevant
analytic years 2023 and 2026. Further,
the EPA found the emissions control
strategies in upwind states that would
deliver these benefits to be widely
available and in use at many other
similar EGU and non-EGU facilities
throughout the country, particularly in
those areas that have historically or now
continue to struggle to attain and
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12704
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As
described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, for this regional pollutant (i.e.,
ozone), for this NAAQS (i.e., 2015
ozone), applying these emissions
control strategies on a uniform basis
across all linked upwind states
constituted an efficient and equitable
solution to the problem of allocating
upwind-state responsibility for the
elimination of significant contribution.
See 88 FR at 36741.
The EPA finds that this solution
should appropriately be extended to
apply to the five remaining states
addressed in this rulemaking. This
uniform regional approach applying the
levels of stringency determined in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is in
keeping with the uniform stringency
approach that the EPA has applied
across linked upwind states in its ozone
transport rulemakings beginning with
the NOX SIP Call. The EPA finds that
this approach continues to effectively
address the ‘‘thorny’’ causation problem
of interstate pollution transport for
regional-scale pollutants like ozone that
transport over large distances and are
affected by the vagaries of meteorology.
EME Homer City, 572 U.S. at 514–16. It
requires the most impactful sources in
each State that has been found to
contribute to ozone problems in other
states to come up to minimum standards
of environmental performance based on
demonstrated NOX pollution-control
technology. Id. at 519. As described in
section V. of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, when the effects of these
emissions reductions are assessed
collectively across the hundreds of EGU
and non-EGU industrial sources that are
subject to that rule, the cumulative
improvements in ozone levels at
downwind receptors, while they may
vary to some extent, are both
measurable and meaningful and will
assist downwind areas in attaining and
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In
this rule, we find that in these five
additional states, there are emissions
reductions available at the costs and
control levels identified in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan and that these
emissions reductions will likewise play
a part in the meaningful air quality
improvements that will assist
downwind areas in attaining and
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS
and ensure that linked upwind states
are held to resolving their fair share of
the problem.
As discussed in the following subsections, the EPA has evaluated the air
quality effects of the different emissions
control strategies identified. The
receptors show measurable
improvement in air quality at each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
incremental control stringency, up to
and including the selected emissions
control strategies for EGUs and nonEGUs. These analytic findings further
confirm that the selected control
stringency applied in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for 23 states is also the
appropriate control stringency to
eliminate significant contribution for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS for these
additional five states. In this proposal,
for the states specifically included, the
EPA also evaluates whether the
proposal results in over-control by
evaluating if an upwind State is linked
solely to downwind air quality
problems that could have been resolved
at a lower cost threshold, or if an
upwind State could have reduced its
emissions below the 1 percent of
NAAQS air quality contribution
threshold at a lower cost threshold than
identified in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. The Agency finds no overcontrol
from this proposal.
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and
Emissions Reductions Assessment
As described in section VI.A. of this
document, in Step 3, the multifactor test
considers cost and air quality factors. In
addition, in this proposed action the
EPA continues to apply its longstanding
approach of considering uniform level
of NOX control stringency as
foundational to the identification of
emissions that significantly contribute
or interfere with maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS, in light of the regionalscale, meteorological-variability, and
long-range transport aspects of the
ozone pollution problem. Thus, at a
foundational level, the EPA views it as
fundamentally equitable, efficient, and
workable to extend the same emissions
control strategies found necessary to
eliminate significant contribution from
23 states already covered by the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan to these five
additional states. See EME Homer, 572
U.S. at 524.
As described in section VI.A. of this
document, in addition to being costeffective on a cost per ton basis, the
EPA’s determination at Step 3 for both
EGUs and non-EGUs is also informed by
the overall level of emissions reductions
that will be achieved and the effect
those reductions are projected to have
on air quality at the downwind
receptors. The EPA also explained in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan that, for
EGUs, the EPA is also influenced by the
fact that the emissions control strategies
for EGUs are generally welldemonstrated to be achieved in practice
at many existing units, as established
through our review of the controls
currently installed on the fleet of
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing EGUs (see 88 FR at 36680). For
non-EGUs, the EPA is also influenced
by the fact that the emissions control
strategies for non-EGUs are generally
well demonstrated to be achieved in
practice at many existing units, as
established through our review of
consent decrees, permits, Reasonably
Available Control Technologies
determinations, and other data sources
(see 88 FR at 36661).
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment
Methodology
As described in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, to assess the air quality
impacts of the various control
stringencies at downwind receptors for
the purposes of Step 3 in that rule, the
EPA evaluated changes resulting from
the emissions reductions associated
with the identified emissions controls in
each of the upwind states, as well as
assumed corresponding reductions of
similar stringency in the downwind
State containing the receptor to which
they are linked. By applying these
emissions reductions to the State
containing the receptor, the EPA
assumed that the downwind State will
implement (if it has not already) an
emissions control stringency for its
sources that is comparable to the
upwind control stringency that was
applied. Consequently, the EPA
accounted for the downwind State’s
‘‘fair share’’ of the responsibility for
resolving a nonattainment or
maintenance problem as a part of the
over-control evaluation.152 As a result,
the EPA estimated the air quality design
values (both average and maximum
design values) under both the base and
control scenarios and, also, evaluated
the air quality contributions from each
State to each downwind monitor
relative to the Step 2 contribution
threshold. In this supplemental rule, for
the Step 3 and over-control evaluations,
the EPA applied the same framework
using the data and tools from the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (see the
Good Neighbor Plan Ozone Transport
Policy Analysis Final Rule TSD for
details). As described in the next
section, the EPA examined whether its
findings in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan regarding stringency and
overcontrol were robust to the updated
152 For EGUs, the analysis for the Connecticut
receptors in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan shows
no EGU reduction potential in Connecticut from the
emissions reduction measures identified given that
State’s already low-emitting fleet; however, EGU
reductions were identified in Colorado and these
reductions were included in the over-control
analysis.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
geographic coverage inclusive of the
states identified in this action.
As explained in section III.D.1. of this
document, the EPA continues to use
2023 and 2026 as the analytical years to
inform its evaluation of good neighbor
obligations for these five additional
states, since these years were selected
and used in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan as aligned with the 2024 and 2027
attainment dates and to maintain
consistency and ensure equity among all
states. See 88 FR at 36749–50.
3. Results for Combined EGU and NonEGU Air Quality Assessment
For 2023, the EPA examined the air
quality effects of the emissions
reduction potential associated with each
EGU emissions control technology
(summarized in section VI.C. of this
document) in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan to arrive at an
appropriate level of stringency. The EPA
uses the same framework for this
supplemental action, and similarly
determined that (1) there are available
emissions reductions from these
additional states in 2023, (2) they have
a beneficial impact on downwind air
quality at identified receptors, and (3)
the updated geography, when
incorporated into the multi-factor test,
supports the same stringency or over
control findings in this action as that of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
EPA confirmed that the emissions
reductions from the five states, in
isolation and in combination with those
from the states in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, reduced ozone levels at
downwind receptors. For 2023, the
resulting average and maximum design
values, adjusted relative to the modeled
design values can be found in the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental
Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA confirmed
that these emissions reductions also do
not result in the air quality
contributions for any of the
supplemental states dropping below the
Step 2 air quality contribution threshold
to all monitors to which the State is
linked (see the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule
TSD for details). While the average
improvement in downwind air quality
improvement for these five states is
expectedly smaller than that for the 22state region of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan’s EGU control program,
so too are the expected emissions
reductions. Importantly, for individual
State and receptor linkages, downwind
air quality improvement was found (see
the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD).
Moreover, health benefits associated
with just minor improvements in ozone
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
concentrations far exceed the cost of
such mitigation measures.
Likewise, for 2026, the EPA examined
the air quality effects of the emissions
reduction potential associated with the
EGU and non-EGU emissions control
technologies (presented in sections IV.B.
and VI.C. of this document). Arizona
was the only State among the five states
with more stringent measures applied in
2026 due to their continued expected
linkage. The EPA confirmed that these
emissions reductions, both individually
and in combination with those from the
states in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, had impacts on the air quality at
downwind receptors. For 2026, the
resulting average and maximum design
values, adjusted relative to the modeled
design values, can be found in the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The
EPA confirmed that these emissions
reductions also do not result in the air
quality contributions from Arizona
dropping below the Step 2 air quality
contribution threshold for all of its
remaining receptors (see the Ozone
Transport Policy Analysis Supplement
Proposal for details).153
4. Conclusions
Considering the cost and air quality
factors described above, with respect to
emissions reductions available in the
near term, the EPA proposes that the
2023 control stringency for EGUs
identified for 22 states in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan constitutes the
emissions reductions that comprise each
of these five states’ interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. For all affected
supplemental states, this control
stringency reflects the optimization of
existing post-combustion controls and
installation of state-of-the-art NOX
combustion controls, which are widely
available at a representative cost of
$1,800 per ton. The EPA’s evaluation
also shows that the effective emissions
rate performance across affected EGUs
153 The EPA’s comprehensive Step 3 analysis for
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan specifically
evaluated all states contributing above the threshold
to each individual monitor. This included each of
the five supplemental states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee) even though they
were not regulated in that rulemaking. These states
had their emissions adjusted when their air quality
contributions were greater than or equal to 1
percent of the NAAQS for each individual
downwind monitor in that action. Thus, they were
already aligned with EPA’s GNP Step 3 conclusion
even prior to their re-examination in this action.
While the results below highlight the collective
impact of the updated geography, consistent with
the final GNP Step 3 analysis, the segmental air
quality benefits pertaining to the emissions
reductions from these five states can be found in the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental
Proposed TSD and corresponding files.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12705
consistent with realization of these
mitigation measures has substantial air
quality benefits and does not overcontrol upwind states’ emissions
relative to either the downwind air
quality problems to which they are
linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent
contribution threshold at Step 2. This
strategy will fully resolve obligations for
the states of Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee.
Similarly, in the case of extended
implementation control measures, the
EPA proposes that the 2026 control
stringencies for EGUs and non-EGUs
finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan constitute the emissions reductions
that comprise the full elimination of
Arizona’s interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. For Arizona, this control
stringency reflects the installation of
new SCR post-combustion controls at
coal steam sources greater than or equal
to 100 Megawatts (MW) and for a more
limited portion of the oil/gas steam fleet
that had higher levels of emissions. As
described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, for EGUs, in addition to the
optimization of existing postcombustion controls and installation of
state-of-the-art NOX combustion
controls these SCR retrofits are
appropriate for Arizona’s linkages
which persist and interfere with
downwind areas’ ability to maintain the
2015 ozone NAAQS by the Serious
nonattainment date (i.e., through the
2026 ozone season) at $11,000 and
$7,700 per ton respectively. This control
stringency also includes the estimated
emissions reductions from certain nonEGUs. These emissions reductions for
non-EGU sources are estimated to cost
an average of $5,457/ton, which is
approximately half the representative
uniform cost threshold of $11,000 per
ton selected for EGUs.
Furthermore, the EPA’s evaluation
shows that the effective emissions rate
performance across EGUs and non-EGUs
consistent with the full realization of
these mitigation measures reduces
ozone levels at the receptors to which
Arizona is linked and does not overcontrol Arizona’s emissions in 2026
relative to either the downwind air
quality problems to which it is linked at
Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution
threshold at Step 2.
VII. Regulatory Requirements and
Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
To implement the required emissions
reductions from EGUs in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee,
the EPA in this rulemaking is proposing
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12706
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
to expand the geographic scope of the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program (‘‘Group 3 trading
program’’) to include sources in these
five states. Refer to section VI.B.1. of the
preamble of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan for a general discussion of the use
of allowance trading programs to
achieve required emissions reductions
from the electric power sector and an
overview of the Group 3 trading
program’s enhancements to maintain
the selected control stringency over time
and to improve emissions performance
at individual units.
The EPA is not proposing to alter the
Group 3 trading program design
elements finalized in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. The EPA is proposing to
extend the program and its design
elements to apply to sources in these
five additional states. These design
elements include the methodology for
determining preset State emissions
budgets for the 2023–2029 control
periods, the methodology for
determining dynamic State emissions
budgets for control periods in 2026 and
onwards, the annual recalibration of the
Group 3 allowance bank, the unitspecific backstop daily emissions rate,
the unit-specific emissions limitations
contingent on assurance level
exceedances, and monitoring and
reporting requirements. The EPA
provided opportunity for comment on
these design elements in the public
comment period following the proposal
of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Following feedback from many
commenters throughout the country, the
EPA finalized the design elements with
some modifications, and section VI.B. of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble provides robust discussion of
changes made in response to comments.
The EPA additionally carefully
evaluated and comprehensively
responded to comments in the Response
to Comment document included in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan docket. In
general, the Agency considers any
issues associated with the application of
the Group 3 Trading Program in these
five additional states to be within the
scope of this action. The EPA does not
propose changes in the basic design
elements that were finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan and is not
aware of any circumstances that would
justify an alternative approach in
extending these provisions to these five
additional states. Throughout the
remainder of this section, where the
EPA has identified particular issues that
are clearly within the scope of this
proposal, it has noted its invitation to
comment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
For the reasons explained in section
VI.B.1. of this document, the EPA
proposes that only the EGU NOX
strategies of fully operating existing
SCRs and SNCRs, and upgrading to
state-of-the-art combustion controls are
possible for the 2025 ozone season.
Based on an assumption that this
proposed action may be finalized
sometime in the summer of 2024, the
first ozone season in which these
strategies can be implemented is the
2025 ozone season.
Regarding the strategy of retrofitting
SCR controls, as the EPA described in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the
EPA proposes that SCR installation at
EGUs can occur over a 36–48 month
period, taking into account the fleetwide
nature of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. However, the Agency also
recognizes that individual SCR
installations at EGUs are capable of
being completed on shorter timeframes
(as little as 21 months), and this
proposed action only analyzes SCRretrofit potential on EGUs for a single
state, Arizona. Recognizing that this
proposal may be finalized sometime in
the summer of 2024, the EPA proposes
that some amount of SCR-retrofit
potential could be accomplished by the
start of the 2027 ozone season, which
would be just shy of a 3-year time
period. The EPA also recognizes that the
Serious area attainment date falls on
August 3, 2027, and that good neighbor
obligations should be addressed, if at all
possible, no later than this date. Taking
all of these considerations into account,
the EPA proposes that SCR retrofits at
EGUs in Arizona can be phased in over
two ozone seasons, 2027 and 2028. This
generally aligns with the 36–48 month
estimate in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
Thus, the EPA is proposing that EGU
sources located in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee
(and Indian country within the states’
borders) will participate in the Group 3
trading program starting with the 2025
ozone season, which runs from May 1,
2025, to September 30, 2025, and
continuing in each ozone season after
2025. Sources in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee (and Indian country within
the states’ borders), which currently
participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program
(‘‘Group 2 trading program’’), would not
be required to participate in the Group
2 trading program with respect to
emissions occurring after 2024.154 The
EPA invites comment on its proposed
compliance start dates for these five
states.
The remainder of this section
discusses the potentially affected units
and the changes the EPA is proposing to
synchronize the integration and
participation of sources in these five
states into the Group 3 trading program.
154 The EPA would consider these EGUs’
participation in the Group 3 trading program as
satisfying their states’ good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and for
Tennessee, the 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS as
well) to the same extent that the states’ obligations
are currently being met through the EGUs’
participation in the Group 2 trading program.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Applicability and Tentative
Identification of Newly Affected Units
The Group 3 trading program applies
to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler
or stationary, fossil fuel-fired
combustion turbine located in a covered
State (or Indian country within the
borders of a covered state) and serving
at any time on or after January 1, 2005,
a generator with nameplate capacity of
more than 25 MW producing electricity
for sale, with exemptions for certain
cogeneration units and certain solid
waste incineration units. The complete
text of the Group 3 trading program’s
applicability provisions (including the
exemptions) and the associated
definitions can be found at 40 CFR
97.1004 and 40 CFR 97.1002,
respectively.
The EPA is not proposing any changes
to the Group 3 trading program’s
applicability provisions in this
rulemaking. The applicability criteria
for the Group 2 and Group 3 trading
programs are identical, with the result
that any units in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee (including units in Indian
country within the borders of such
states) that are already subject to the
Group 2 trading program would also
become subject to the Group 3 trading
program. Further, the EPA expects that
any units in Arizona and New Mexico
(including units in Indian country
within the borders of such states) that
are already subject to the Acid Rain
Program under that program’s
applicability criteria (see 40 CFR 72.6),
would also meet the applicability
criteria for the Group 3 trading program.
Because the applicability criteria for
the Acid Rain Program and the Group 3
trading program are not identical, some
units that are not subject to the Acid
Rain Program could meet the
applicability criteria for the Group 3
trading program. Using data reported to
the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the EPA has identified
nine sources in Arizona and New
Mexico with a total of 23 units that that
do not currently report NOX emissions
and operating data to the EPA under the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Acid Rain Program but that appear to
meet the applicability criteria for the
Group 3 trading program. The units are
listed in Table VII.A.1–1. For each of
these units, the table shows the
estimated historical heat input and
emissions data that the EPA proposes to
use for the unit when determining State
12707
emissions budgets if the unit is
ultimately treated as subject to the
Group 3 trading program.
TABLE VII.A.1–1—SELECTED POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EXISTING UNITS
State
Facility ID
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
Arizona ..............................
New Mexico ......................
141
141
141
160
147
147
147
116
116
118
118
8068
8068
8068
8068
117
117
117
117
117
120
120
2446
Facility name
Unit ID
Agua Fria .........................
Agua Fria .........................
Agua Fria .........................
Apache .............................
Kyrene ..............................
Kyrene ..............................
Kyrene ..............................
Ocotillo .............................
Ocotillo .............................
Saguaro ............................
Saguaro ............................
Santan ..............................
Santan ..............................
Santan ..............................
Santan ..............................
West Phoenix ...................
West Phoenix ...................
West Phoenix ...................
West Phoenix ...................
West Phoenix ...................
Yucca ...............................
Yucca ...............................
Maddox ............................
AF4 ................
AF5 ................
AF6 ................
GT3 ................
KY4 ................
KY5 ................
KY6 ................
GT1 ................
GT2 ................
GT1 ................
GT2 ................
ST1 ................
ST2 ................
ST3 ................
ST4 ................
1B ..................
2B ..................
3B ..................
GT1 ................
GT2 ................
GT3 ................
GT4 ................
2 .....................
The EPA requests comment on which
existing units in Arizona and New
Mexico and Indian country within the
borders of each State would or would
not meet the applicability criteria for the
Group 3 trading program. The EPA also
requests comment, with supporting
data, on whether the estimated
historical heat input and emissions data
identified for each unit in Table
VII.A.1–1 are representative for the unit.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
The Group 3 trading program as
revised in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan provides for both preset and
dynamic State emissions budgets. Preset
emissions budgets were determined in
the rulemaking for all states for the
control periods in the years through
2029, and dynamic emissions budgets
are computed according to procedures
set forth in 40 CFR 97.1010(a) for each
control period starting with the 2026
control period. In the control periods for
the years from 2026 through 2029, the
emissions budget for each State will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
Unit type
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
the higher of the preset emissions
budget or the dynamic emissions budget
computed for the State for that control
period. The variability limit for each
State for each control period is
determined as a percentage of the State’s
emissions budget for the control period
in accordance with 40 CFR 97.1010(e),
and the State’s assurance level for the
control period is the sum of the
emissions budget and the variability
limit. This same system for determining
State emissions budgets, variability
limits, and assurance levels would also
apply to the five states that would be
added to the Group 3 trading program
in this rulemaking.
In this proposal, the EPA is presenting
the proposed preset State ozone season
NOX emissions budgets for covered
EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee for the control
periods in 2025 through 2029. For all
five states, starting with the 2025
control period, the State emissions
budgets would reflect emissions
reductions achievable through
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Estimated
ozone season
heat input
(mmBtu)
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
15,443
13,659
13,659
633,453
2,317
5,326
5,326
1,752,453
1,752,453
284,976
284,976
1,037,153
1,037,153
1,037,153
1,037,153
1,064,206
1,064,206
1,064,206
12,125
12,125
587,371
587,371
62,445
Estimated
ozone season
NOX emissions
rate
(lb/mmBtu)
0.346
0.345
0.375
0.135
0.106
0.499
0.322
0.016
0.006
0.161
0.049
0.037
0.067
0.052
0.036
0.446
0.444
0.053
0.165
0.806
0.140
0.018
0.309
optimization of installed controls and
installation of new state-of-the-art
combustion controls. In addition, for
Arizona but not for the other four states,
the emissions reductions achievable
through the installation and operation of
new SCR controls would be phased in
starting with the preset and dynamic
budgets for the 2027 control periods and
would be fully reflected in the preset
and dynamic budgets for 2028 and later
control periods. As noted previously,
the EPA is not proposing changes in the
methodologies used to establish the
preset or dynamic State emissions
budgets, the variability limits, or the
assurance levels. The EPA is not aware
of any circumstances that would justify
an alternative approach in extending
these provisions to these five additional
states. Rather, the EPA is requesting
comment on the preset State ozone
season NOX emissions budgets
calculated using these methodologies.
The preset State emissions budgets for
control periods 2025–2029 are
presented in Table VII.A.2–1.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12708
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VII.A.2–1—PROPOSED PRESET STATE EMISSIONS BUDGETS, 2025–2029
[tons]
2025
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Arizona .................................................................................
Iowa ......................................................................................
Kansas .................................................................................
New Mexico .........................................................................
Tennessee ...........................................................................
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
Under the Group 3 trading program,
in advance of each control period, a
portion of each State’s emissions budget
for the control period is reserved as a
set-aside for potential allocation to new
units and the unreserved portion of the
budget is then allocated among the
state’s existing units. If there are
existing units in areas of Indian country
within a State’s borders not subject to
the State’s SIP authority, allocations to
those units are made through Indian
country existing unit set-asides.155 After
each control period, the new unit setaside is allocated among any units
qualifying for allocations within the
State’s borders (including areas of
Indian country) and any remaining
allowances are reallocated among the
existing units. In almost all cases, the
allocations to set-asides, to existing
units, and to new units are made
according to procedures laid out in the
regulations at 40 CFR 97.1010 through
97.1012. The exception is that for
control periods where the final State
emissions budgets are established in the
related rulemaking—e.g., the 2025
control period—the set-asides and
allocations to existing units are also
established in the related rulemaking,
using the same allocation procedure
applicable to later control periods. This
same system for allocating allowances
from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
would also apply to the five states that
would be added to the Group 3 trading
program in this rulemaking.
Based on the same methodology used
to determine the percentages of the
budgets set aside for new units for other
states in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA is proposing that the
percentages of the budgets set aside for
new units for the five proposed
additional states would be the default of
5 percent for each of the states for all
control periods, except for Arizona for
the control periods in 2025 and 2026,
155 The EPA is aware of four existing EGUs in
Indian country that would be covered under this
rulemaking’s proposed expansion of the Group 3
trading program: South Point Units A and B in the
Fort Mojave Reservation within Arizona’s borders,
and Four Corners Units 4 and 5 in the Navajo
Reservation within New Mexico’s borders.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
2026
8,195
9,752
4,763
2,211
3,983
5,814
9,713
4,763
2,008
3,983
for which the percentage would be 11
percent. The EPA is also presenting the
proposed unit-level allocations to
existing units in the newly added states
for the 2025 control period. The
methodology and procedures used to
determine new unit set-aside
percentages and unit-level allocations
are described in section VI.B.9. of the
preamble to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan and in the ‘‘Addendum to the
Allowance Allocation Under the Final
Rule TSD for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan’’ TSD available in the docket for
this action. The EPA’s allocations and
allocation procedures apply for the 2025
control period, and, by default, for
subsequent control periods unless and
until a State or tribe provides state- or
tribe-determined allowance allocations
under an approved SIP revision or
Tribal implementation plan.156 The EPA
is taking comment only on the data
inputs (e.g., corrections to the heat input
value used for a particular unit) used in
applying the allowance allocation
methodology for existing units and on
the resulting existing unit allocations
proposed for the five proposed
additional states. The EPA is not
proposing changes in the methodologies
used for allowance allocation and for
establishing set-asides determined in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
EPA is not aware of any circumstances
that would justify an alternative
approach in extending these provisions
to these five additional states.
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain
Trading Program Provisions
In general, sources in the proposed
additional states would face the same
compliance requirements as sources in
states already covered by the Group 3
trading program, but the EPA is
156 The options for states to submit SIP revisions
that would replace the EPA’s default allowance
allocations are discussed in sections VII.C.1.,
VII.C.2., and VII.C.3. of this document. Similarly,
for a covered area of Indian country not subject to
a State’s CAA implementation planning authority,
a tribe could elect to work with the EPA under the
Tribal Authority Rule to develop a full or partial
Tribal implementation plan under which the tribe
would determine allowance allocations that would
replace the EPA’s default allocations for subsequent
control periods.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2027
2028
4,913
9,713
4,763
2,008
2,666
3,949
9,713
4,763
2,008
2,130
2029
3,949
9,077
4,763
2,008
1,198
proposing three exceptions. The first
exception concerns the timing with
which elements of the selected
emissions control strategy are reflected
in the State emissions budgets. As
discussed in section VI. of this
document, the EPA proposes to find that
it is reasonable for the State emissions
budgets to reflect emissions reductions
achievable from new combustion
controls starting in the 2025 control
period and emissions reductions
achievable from new SCR controls
phased in over the 2027–2028 control
periods. These proposed timing
determinations, which are necessarily
later than the corresponding timing
determinations for sources in states
already covered by the Group 3 trading
program, would be reflected in the
preset and dynamic State emissions
budgets for the proposed additional
states, as discussed in section VII.A.2. of
this document.
The second exception concerns the
timing of the application of the backstop
daily NOX emissions rate provisions.
For units in the proposed additional
states with existing SCR controls, the
EPA proposes that these provisions
would apply starting in the 2026 control
period, which would be the units’
second control period in the revised
Group 3 trading program. For units in
Arizona without existing SCR controls,
the backstop rate provision would apply
in the second control period in which
such controls are operated, but not later
than the 2030 control period. These
proposed schedules would reflect the
same principles used to determine the
schedules for units with and without
existing SCR controls in the states
already in the program. The backstop
rate provisions would not apply to units
without existing SCR controls in Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee
(unless the units choose to install such
controls, in which case the backstop rate
provisions would apply starting in the
second control period in which such
controls are operated) because the
emissions control stringency identified
as appropriate for those states to address
the states’ good neighbor obligations
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
does not include the installation of new
SCR controls.157
The third exception concerns the
timing of the application of the
maximum controlled baseline
provisions which potentially cap
allowance allocations to individual
units. For units in the proposed
additional states with existing SCR
controls, the EPA proposes that these
provisions would apply starting in the
2025 control period, which would be
the units’ first full control period in the
revised Group 3 trading program. For
units in Arizona without existing SCR
controls, the maximum controlled
baseline provisions would apply
starting with the 2028 control period,
which would be the first year in which
the Arizona State emissions budget
would fully reflect the emissions
reductions achievable through the
installation of new SCR controls. Again,
these proposed schedules would reflect
the same principles used to determine
the schedules for units with and
without existing SCR controls in the
states already in the program. The
maximum controlled baseline
provisions would not apply to units
without existing SCR controls in Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee
(unless the units choose to install such
controls) because the emissions control
stringency identified for those states as
necessary to address the states’ good
neighbor obligations does not include
the installation of new SCR controls.158
The EPA requests comment on the
proposed timing of the backstop daily
NOX emissions rate provisions and the
maximum controlled baseline
provisions for sources in the proposed
additional states.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3
Allowance Bank for the 2025 Control
Period and Adjustment to Bank
Recalibration for the 2025 Control
Period
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA created an initial bank of 2023
Group 3 allowances available to sources
in states newly added to the Group 3
trading program by converting banked
157 As discussed in section X.C. of this document,
the EPA is proposing to make technical corrections
to the backstop rate provisions to ensure that the
provisions would not inadvertently apply to units
without existing SCR controls in any State for
which the EPA’s identified emissions control
stringency does not include the installation of new
SCR controls.
158 As discussed in section X.C. of this document,
the EPA is proposing to make technical corrections
to the maximum controlled baseline provisions to
ensure that the provisions would not inadvertently
apply to units without existing SCR controls in any
State for which the EPA’s identified emissions
control stringency does not include the installation
of new SCR controls.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
2017–2022 Group 2 allowances.
Similarly, in this rulemaking the EPA
proposes to create an initial bank of
2025 Group 3 allowances available to
sources in the proposed additional
states by converting banked 2017–2024
Group 2 allowances. The target quantity
of banked 2025 Group 3 allowances to
be created would be 21 percent of the
sum of the 2025 State emissions budgets
of the newly added states. The
allowances to be converted would be all
2017–2024 Group 2 allowances held in
the facility accounts of sources in the
newly added states as of the conversion
date, which is proposed to be 45 days
after the effective date of a final rule in
this rulemaking. The conversion ratio
would be the total quantity of 2017–
2024 Group 2 allowances being
converted divided by the target quantity
of 2025 Group 3 allowances being
created, but not less than 1.0.
The EPA’s rationale for proposing to
create an initial allowance bank
available to the sources in newly added
states is generally the same as the
rationale for creating the similar bank
under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
The limited differences between the two
bank creation processes are attributable
to changes in circumstances and are
fully consistent with that rationale.
First, because the emissions reductions
achievable through installation of
combustion controls would be reflected
in the budgets for the newly added
States’ first control period in the
program, the allowance bank target
would be based on the first year’s
budgets rather than the second year’s
budgets. Second, because the EPA
expects that the effective date of a final
rule will not fall partway through an
ozone season, there is no need in this
proposal to plan for prorating of the
allowance bank target quantity. Finally,
because the sources in the newly added
states would represent a minority of the
sources currently participating in the
Group 2 trading program, this proposal
would not convert Group 2 allowances
held in general accounts. For further
discussion of the rationale for the
proposed bank creation, see section
VI.B.12.b. of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan preamble.
In addition to providing for the
creation of an initial Group 3 allowance
bank through the conversion of banked
Group 2 allowances, the EPA is also
proposing an adjustment to the Group 3
trading program’s bank recalibration
provisions for the 2025 control period to
coordinate those provisions with the
proposed addition of the five additional
states. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to exclude the five newly
added states’ 2025 budgets when
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12709
calculating the bank ceiling target used
to determine whether any bank
recalibration for the 2025 control period
will occur. The reason for this proposed
change is that because the initial bank
creation process described in the
preceding paragraphs of this section
(section VII.A.5. of this document)
would separately create a quantity of
banked allowances for 2025 of up to 21
percent of the newly added states’
emissions budgets, to ensure that the
overall quantity of banked allowances
available for use in the entire Group 3
trading program in the 2025 control
period is no more than 21 percent of the
emissions budgets of all states covered
by the program in 2025, the bank ceiling
target used in the bank recalibration
process for other banked allowances
carried over into the 2025 control period
in the Group 3 trading program would
need to be limited to 21 percent of the
budgets for the states other than the
newly added states. For 2026 and later
control periods, the bank ceiling target
will be calculated for all states in the
Group 3 trading program using the State
emissions budgets for all covered states.
The EPA requests comment on the
proposed creation of an initial Group 3
allowance bank and the proposed
adjustment to the Group 3 allowance
bank recalibration for the 2025 control
period.
B. Regulatory Requirements for NonEGUs
As summarized in section II.B. of this
document, the EPA finalized
requirements for emissions unit types in
the following nine non-EGU industries
(industrial sources) in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan: RICE in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron
and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and
Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers in
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and
combustors and incinerators in Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators. The
EPA determined these are the most
impactful types of units in the relevant
industries and that emissions reductions
are achievable with the control
technologies identified in sections
VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan and further
discussed in the Final Non-EGU Sectors
TSD. The rationale behind the
applicability criteria, emissions limits,
and additional regulatory requirements
for each industry can also be found in
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12710
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
emissions control requirements of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan for nonEGU sources apply only during the
ozone season (May through September)
each year.
In this document, the EPA proposes to
extend these regulatory requirements to
affected units within the State of
Arizona under the same rationale
provided in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. These proposed FIP requirements
for Arizona apply to both new and
existing emissions units in the State.
This approach will ensure that all new
and existing emissions units in Arizona
that meet the applicability criteria will
be subject to the same good neighbor
requirements that apply to new and
existing units under the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan for other covered states,
in a manner that is wholly consistent
with the determination of significant
contribution and interference with
maintenance at Step 3 (see section VI.
of this document). Applying this same
uniform set of control requirements will
also avoid creating, inadvertently or
intentionally, any incentives to shift
production (and therefore emissions)
from an existing non-EGU source to a
new non-EGU source of the same type
but lacking the relevant emissions
control requirements either within a
linked State or in another linked state,
including the State of Arizona. The
rationale behind the applicability
criteria, emissions limits, and additional
regulatory requirements for each
industry can be found in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan.
The EPA does not propose to make
any changes in the non-EGU
requirements that were finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan as
applicable to this one additional state.
(The EPA does propose to make certain
corrections in the regulatory text as
applicable in all states that are subject
to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s
non-EGU provisions, as discussed in
section X. of this document.) The EPA
proposes to extend these requirements
to cover one additional state, Arizona.
The EPA is not aware of any
circumstances that would justify an
alternative approach in extending these
provisions to Arizona, which were
already finalized to apply in other
covered states on a uniform basis.
However, the public is invited to
comment on the proposed application of
these requirements in Arizona.
Similar to the EPA’s adjustment in the
compliance schedule for EGUs, the EPA
proposes that compliance with non-EGU
requirements in Arizona can be
accomplished by the start of the 2027
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
ozone season. This is 1 year later than
the onset of these compliance
obligations for states that currently are
subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. This reflects findings in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan that all
non-EGU emissions control strategies
can generally be implemented within a
3-year timeframe. Three years from
when this proposal may be finalized in
2024 roughly correlates to the 2027
ozone season. Respecting the potential
need for compliance extensions beyond
this ozone season, this proposal
likewise includes the availability of
compliance extensions under 40 CFR
52.40(d) (as well as the availability of
alternative emissions limits under 40
CFR 52.40(e)). The dates associated with
filing applications under these
provisions, as well as for making other
filings and demonstrations in
association with compliance with the
non-EGU requirements, are proposed to
be adjusted from the dates finalized in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and
generally are proposed to align with the
2027 ozone season. (The Agency
anticipates and acknowledges that the
dates associated for compliance in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan for other
states where that rule is currently stayed
pending judicial review will likewise
need to be reviewed and adjusted
through rulemaking action.) The Agency
invites comment on its proposal that
compliance with emissions limits for
covered non-EGU sources in Arizona
will be required beginning on May 1,
2027.
C. Submitting a SIP
Under the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, a State may submit a SIP at any
time to address CAA requirements that
are covered by a FIP, and if the EPA
approves the SIP submission it would
replace the FIP, in whole or in part, as
appropriate. As discussed in this
section, states may opt for one of several
alternatives that the EPA has provided
to take over all or portions of the FIP.
However, as discussed in greater detail
further in this section of the document,
the EPA also recognizes that states
retain the discretion to develop SIPs to
replace a FIP under approaches that
differ from those the EPA finalizes.
The EPA has established certain
specialized provisions for replacing FIPs
with SIPs within all the CSAPR trading
programs, including the use of so-called
‘‘abbreviated SIPs’’ and ‘‘full SIPs,’’ see
40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and (5) and (b)(4),
(5), (8), (9), (11), and (12); 40 CFR
52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i). For a State to
remove all FIP provisions through an
approved SIP revision, a State would
need to address all required reductions
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
addressed by the FIP for that state, i.e.,
reductions achieved through both EGU
control and non-EGU control, as
applicable to that state. Additionally,
tribes in Indian country within the
geographic scope of this rule may elect
to work with the EPA under the Tribal
Authority Rule to replace the FIP for
areas of Indian country, in whole or in
part, with a Tribal implementation plan
or reasonably severable portions of a
Tribal implementation plan.
Consistent with the options provided
to states included in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, under the FIPs for the
five states in this proposed rule whose
EGUs are required to participate in the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program, the EPA proposes to
offer ‘‘abbreviated’’ and ‘‘full’’ SIP
submission options for states. An
‘‘abbreviated SIP’’ would allow a State
to submit a SIP revision that establishes
state-determined allowance allocation
provisions replacing the default FIP
allocation provisions but leaving the
remaining FIP provisions in place. A
‘‘full SIP’’ would allow a State to adopt
a trading program meeting certain
requirements that allow sources in the
State to continue to use the EPAadministered trading program through
an approved SIP revision, rather than a
FIP. In addition, as under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan and past CSAPR
rulemakings, the EPA proposes that
newly added states have the option to
adopt state-determined allowance
allocations for existing units for the
second control period under this rule—
in this case, the 2026 control period—
through streamlined SIP revisions. See
76 FR 48326–48332 for additional
discussion of full and abbreviated SIP
options; see also 40 CFR 52.38(b).
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for
2026 Under EGU Trading Program
As with the start of past CSAPR
rulemakings, the EPA proposes the
option to allow a newly added State to
use a similar process to submit a SIP
revision establishing allowance
allocations for existing EGU units in the
State for the second control period of
the new requirements, i.e., in 2026, to
replace the EPA-determined default
allocations. A State would have to
submit a letter to the EPA by 15 days
after the effective date of a final rule in
this rulemaking indicating its intent to
submit a complete SIP revision by April
1, 2025. The SIP revision would
provide, in an EPA-prescribed format, a
list of existing units within the State
and their allocations for the 2026
control period. If a State does not
submit a letter of intent to submit a SIP
revision, or if a State submits a timely
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
letter of intent but fails to submit a SIP
revision, the EPA-determined default
allocations would be recorded by July 1,
2025. If a State submits a timely letter
of intent followed by a timely SIP
revision that is approved, the approved
SIP revision allocations would be
recorded by October 1, 2025.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for
2027 and Beyond Under EGU Trading
Program
For the 2027 control period and later,
the EPA also proposes that newly added
states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program could submit
a SIP revision that makes changes only
to the allowance allocation provisions
while relying on the FIP for the
remaining provisions of the EGU trading
program.159 This abbreviated SIP option
would allow states to tailor the FIP to
their individual choices while
maintaining the FIP-based structure of
the trading program. To ensure the
availability of allowance allocations for
units in any Indian country within a
State not covered by the State’s CAA
implementation planning authority, if
the State chose to replace the EPA’s
default allocations with statedetermined allocations, the EPA would
continue to administer any portion of
each State emissions budget reserved as
a new unit set-aside or an Indian
country existing unit set-aside.
The SIP submission deadline for this
type of revision would be December 1,
2025, if the State intends for the SIP
revision to be effective beginning with
the 2027 control period. For states that
submit this type of SIP revision, the
deadline to submit state-determined
allocations beginning with the 2027
control period under an approved SIP
would be June 1, 2026, and the deadline
for the EPA to record those allocations
would be July 1, 2026. Similarly, a State
could submit a SIP revision beginning
with the 2028 control period and
beyond by December 1, 2026, with State
allocations for the 2028 control period
due June 1, 2027, and the EPA’s
recordation of the allocations due by
July 1, 2027.
trading program through an approved
SIP revision.160 Under this full SIP
option, a State could submit a SIP
revision that makes changes only to
modify the EPA-determined default
allocations while adopting identical
provisions for the remaining portions of
the EGU trading program. This SIP
option would allow states to replace
these FIP provisions with state-based
SIP provisions while continuing
participation in the larger regional
trading program. As with the
abbreviated SIP option discussed
previously, to ensure the availability of
allowance allocations for units in any
Indian country within a State not
covered by the State’s CAA
implementation planning authority, if
the State chooses to replace the EPA’s
default allocations with statedetermined allocations, the EPA would
continue to administer any portion of
each State emissions budget reserved as
a new unit set-aside or an Indian
country existing unit set-aside.
Deadlines for this type of SIP revision
would be the same as the deadlines for
abbreviated SIP revisions. For the SIPbased program to start with the 2027
control period, the SIP revision deadline
would be December 1, 2025, the
deadline to submit state-determined
allocations for the 2027 control period
under an approved SIP would be June
1, 2026, and the deadline for the EPA
to record those allocations would be
July 1, 2026, and so on.
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the
Trading Program
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal
EGU Trading Program With an
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
For the 2027 control period and later,
the EPA proposes that newly added
states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program could choose
to replace the Federal EGU trading
program with an integrated State EGU
States can submit SIP revisions to
replace the FIP that achieve the
necessary EGU emissions reductions but
do not use the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 Trading Program. For a
transport SIP revision that does not use
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program, the EPA would
evaluate the transport SIP revision
based on the particular control strategies
selected and whether the strategies as a
whole provide adequate and enforceable
provisions ensuring that the necessary
emissions reductions (i.e., reductions
equal to or greater than what the Group
3 trading program will achieve) will be
achieved. To address the applicable
CAA requirements, the SIP revision
should include the following general
elements: (1) a comprehensive baseline
2023 statewide NOX emissions
inventory (which includes existing
control requirements), which should be
159 Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states
already covered by the Group 3 trading program
already have this option, starting with the 2025
control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(11).
160 Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states
already covered by the Group 3 trading program
already have this option, starting with the 2025
control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12711
consistent with the 2023 emissions
inventory that the EPA used to calculate
the required State budget in this final
proposed rule (unless the State can
explain the discrepancy); (2) a list and
description of control measures to
satisfy the State emissions reduction
obligation and a demonstration showing
when each measure would be
implemented to meet the 2025 and
successive compliance deadlines; (3)
fully–adopted State rules providing for
such NOX controls during the ozone
season; (4) for EGUs larger than 25 MW,
monitoring and reporting under 40 CFR
part 75, and for other units, monitoring
and reporting procedures sufficient to
demonstrate that sources are complying
with the SIP (see 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K (‘‘source surveillance’’
requirements)); and (5) a projected
inventory demonstrating that State
measures along with Federal measures
will achieve the necessary emissions
reductions in time to meet the 2025 and
successive compliance deadlines (e.g.,
enforceable reductions commensurate
with installation of SCR on coal–fired
EGUs by the 2027 ozone season). The
SIPs must meet procedural requirements
under the Act, such as the requirements
for public hearing, be adopted by the
appropriate State board or authority,
and establish by a practically
enforceable regulation or permit(s) a
schedule and date for each affected
source or source category to achieve
compliance. Once the State has made a
SIP submission, the EPA will evaluate
the submission(s) for completeness
before acting on the SIP submission.
EPA’s criteria for determining
completeness of a SIP submission are
codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
For further background information
on considerations for replacing a FIP
with a SIP, see the discussion in the
final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326).
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non–
EGU or Industrial Source Control
Requirements
Just as with the EGU requirements
discussed in section VII.C.1.–4. of this
document, the EPA’s finalization of this
proposed interstate ozone transport FIP
for Arizona would in no way affect the
ability of the State to submit, for review
and approval, a SIP that replaces the
requirements of the FIP with State
requirements. To replace the non-EGU
portion of the FIP in a state, the State’s
SIP submission must provide adequate
provisions to prohibit NOX emissions
that contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. The State SIP
submission must demonstrate that the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12712
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
emissions reductions required by the
SIP would continue to ensure that
significant contribution and interference
with maintenance from that State has
been eliminated through permanent and
enforceable measures. The non-EGU
requirements of the FIP would remain
in place in each covered State until a
State’s SIP submission has been
approved by the EPA to replace the FIP.
The most straightforward method for
a State to submit a presumptively
approvable SIP revision to replace the
non-EGU portion of the FIPs for the
State would be to provide a SIP revision
that includes emissions limits at an
equivalent or greater level of stringency
than is specified for non-EGU sources
meeting the applicability criteria and
associated compliance assurance
provisions for each of the unit types
identified in section VI.C. of this
document. However, states are also free
to develop alternative approaches to
eliminating significant contribution and
interference with maintenance in other
states, so long as they are shown to be
equivalent to the Federal plan they
replace. The Federal Good Neighbor
Plan contains a more detailed
discussion of factors and considerations
associated with replacing a good
neighbor FIP. See 88 FR at 36842–43.
D. Title V Permitting
As with the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, as well as other previous good
neighbor rules, like the CSAPR, the
CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR
Update, this proposed rule would not
establish any permitting requirements
independent of those under Title V of
the CAA and the regulations
implementing Title V, 40 CFR parts 70
and 71.161 All major stationary sources
of air pollution and certain other
sources are required to apply for title V
operating permits that include
emissions limitations and other
conditions as necessary to ensure
compliance with the applicable
requirements of the CAA, including the
requirements of the applicable SIP. CAA
sections 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C.
7661a(a) and 7661c(a). The ‘‘applicable
requirements’’ that must be addressed in
title V permits are defined in the title V
regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2
(definition of ‘‘applicable
requirement’’)).
The EPA anticipates that, given the
nature of the units subject to this final
rule, most if not all of the sources at
which the units are located are already
subject to title V permitting
161 Part 70 addresses requirements for State title
V programs, and Part 71 governs the Federal title
V program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
requirements and already possess a title
V operating permit. For sources subject
to title V, the interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS that are applicable to them
under the FIPs proposed in this action
would be ‘‘applicable requirements’’
under title V and therefore must be
addressed in the title V permits. For
example, EGU requirements concerning
designated representatives, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping, the
requirement to hold allowances
covering emissions, the compliance
assurance provisions, and liability, and
for non-EGUs, the emissions limits and
compliance requirements are, to the
extent relevant to each source,
‘‘applicable requirements’’ that must be
addressed in the permits.
Consistent with EPA’s approach
under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the applicable requirements resulting
from the FIPs generally would have to
be incorporated into affected sources’
existing title V permits either pursuant
to the provisions for reopening for cause
(40 CFR 70.7(f) and 71.7(f)), significant
modifications (40 CFR 70.7(e)(4)) or the
standard permit renewal provisions (40
CFR 70.7(c) and 71.7(c)).162 For sources
newly subject to title V that would be
affected sources under the FIPs, the
initial title V permit issued pursuant to
40 CFR 70.7(a) would address the final
FIP requirements.
As was the case in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the new and amended
FIPs would impose no independent
permitting requirements and the title V
permitting process would impose no
additional burden on sources already
required to be permitted under title V.
More detailed title V permitting
considerations for both EGUs and nonEGUs are provided in section VI.D. of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
VIII. Environmental Justice
Considerations, Implications and
Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
Demographic proximity analyses
allow one to assess the potentially
vulnerable populations residing nearby
affected facilities as an indicator of
exposure and the potential for adverse
health impacts that may occur at a local
scale due to economic activity at a given
location including noise, odors, traffic,
and emissions such as NO2, covered
162 A permit is reopened for cause if any new
applicable requirements (such as those under a FIP)
become applicable to an affected source with a
remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If the
remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such
new applicable requirements will be added to the
permit during permit renewal. See 40 CFR
70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under this EPA action and not modeled
elsewhere in this EIA.
Although baseline proximity analyses
are presented here for the supplemental
rule, several important caveats should
be noted. In most areas, emissions are
not expected to increase from the
rulemaking, so most communities
nearby affected facilities should
experience decreases in exposure from
directly emitted pollutants. However,
facilities may vary widely in terms of
the impacts on populations they already
pose to nearby populations. In addition,
proximity to affected facilities does not
capture variation in baseline exposure
across communities, nor does it indicate
that any exposures or impacts will occur
and should not be interpreted as a direct
measure of exposure or impact. These
points limit the usefulness of proximity
analyses when attempting to answer
question from EPA’s Environmental
Justice Technical Guidance.
Demographic proximity analyses were
performed for two subsets of facilities
affected by the supplemental rule:
• Electricity Generating Unit (EGU):
Comparison of the percentage of various
populations (race/ethnicity, age,
education, poverty status, income, and
linguistic isolation) living nearby
covered EGU sources to average national
levels.
• Non-EGU (non-electric generating
units, or other stationary emissions
sources): Comparison of the percentage
of various populations (race/ethnicity,
age, education, poverty status, income,
and linguistic isolation) living nearby
covered non-EGU sources to average
national levels.
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
The current analysis identified all
census blocks with centroids within a 5
km, 10 km and 50 km radius of the
latitude/longitude location of each
facility, and then linked each block with
census-based demographic data.163 The
total population within a specific radius
around each facility is the sum of the
population for every census block
within that specified radius, based on
each block’s population provided by the
decennial Census.164 Statistics on race,
163 Five km and 50 km radii are the default
distances currently used for proximity analyses.
The 5 km distance is the shortest distance that
should be chosen to avoid excessive demographic
uncertainty and provides information on near-field
populations. The 50 km distance offers a subregional perspective. The 10 km distance was added
to this analysis as few to no people were within 5
km of some affected facilities.
164 The location of the Census block centroid is
used to determine if the entire population of the
Census block is assumed to be within the specified
radius. It is unknown how sensitive these results
may be to different methods of population
estimation, such as aerial apportionment.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12713
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ethnicity, age, education level, poverty
status and linguistic isolation were
obtained from the Census’ 2015–2019
American Community Survey 5-year
averages. These data are provided at the
block group level. For the purposes of
this analysis, the demographic
characteristics of a given block group—
that is, the percentage of people in
different races/ethnicities, the
percentage in different age groups (<18,
18–64, and >64), the percentage without
a high school diploma, the percentage
that are below the poverty level, and the
percentage that are linguistically
isolated—are presumed to also describe
each census block located within that
block group.
In addition to facility-specific
demographics, the demographic
composition of the total population
within the specified radius (e.g., 50 km)
for all facilities as a whole was also
computed (e.g., all EGUs or all non-EGU
facilities). In calculating the total
populations, to avoid double-counting,
each census block population was only
counted once. That is, if a census block
was located within the selected radius
(i.e., 50 km) for multiple facilities, the
population of that census block was
only counted once in the total
population. Finally, this analysis
compares the demographics at each
specified radius (i.e., 5 km, 10 km, and
50 km) to the demographic composition
of the nationwide population.
For this action, a demographic
analysis was conducted for nine EGU
facilities assumed to install additional
controls at the 5 km, 10 km, and 50 km
radius distances (Table VIII.A.1–1).
Approximately 7 million people live
within 50 km of these nine EGU
facilities, representing roughly 2 percent
of the 328 million total population of
the U.S. Within 50km of EGU facilities,
there is a higher Hispanic/Latino
population than the national average (26
percent versus 19 percent) and a higher
Native American population than the
national average (1.9 percent versus 0.7
percent). Other demographics of the
population within 50km of the EGU
facilities are similar to the national
averages. Approximately 166 thousand
and 716 thousand people live within 5
km and 10 km of the EGU facilities,
respectively. The demographic make-up
of the population within 5 km and 10
km of EGU facilities are very similar.
Within 5 km and 10 km of EGU
facilities, there is a higher Hispanic/
Latino population than the national
average (60 percent within 5 km and 53
percent within 10 km versus 19 percent
nationwide) and a higher Native
American population than the national
average (5.5 percent within 5 km and
3.5 percent within 10 km versus 0.7
percent nationwide). The populations
within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities
have a higher percentage of people
under the age of 18 compared to the
national average (29 percent within both
5km and 10km versus 23 percent
nationwide). The percent of people
living below the poverty level is higher
than the national average (24 percent
within 5 km and 23 percent within 10
km versus 13 percent nationwide). The
percent of people over the age of 25
without a high school diploma is higher
than the national average (18 percent
within 5 km and 16 percent within 10
km versus 12 percent nationwide), and
the percent of people living in linguistic
isolation is higher than the national
average (12 percent within 5 km and 10
percent within 10 km versus 5 percent
nationwide).
TABLE VIII.A.1–1—POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE NINE EGU FACILITIES ASSUMED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL
CONTROLS DUE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULE
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average 1
Demographic group
5 km
Race/Ethnicity:
White .........................................................................................................
African American ......................................................................................
Native American .......................................................................................
Other and Multiracial ................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino 2 ...................................................................................
Age:
0–17 Years Old ........................................................................................
18–64 Years Old ......................................................................................
>=65 Years Old ........................................................................................
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level ....................................................
Education:
>= 25 Years Old Without a High School Diploma ...................................
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation .........................................................
Total Population ................................................................................
10 km
National
average
50 km
23
9
5.5
3
60
28
10
3.5
5
53
59
7
1.9
6
26
60
12
0.7
8
19
29
61
9
29
62
9
24
61
15
23
62
16
24
23
14
13
18
16
8
12
12
10
5
5
165,712
716,296
6,742,898
328,016,242
1 Demographic
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
percentage is based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
2 To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person who
identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in
the Census.
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
For this action, a demographic
analysis was also conducted for two
non-EGU facilities assumed to install
additional controls at the 5 km, 10 km,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
and 50 km radius distances
(TableVIII.A.2–1). Approximately 218
thousand people live within 50 km of
these two non-EGU facilities,
representing roughly 0.07 percent of the
328 million total population of the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Within 50km of the two non-EGU
facilities, there is a higher White
population than the national average (72
percent versus 60 percent), and there is
a higher Native American population
than the national average (3.8 percent
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12714
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
versus 0.7 percent). There is also a
higher population over the age of 65
than the national average (24 percent
versus 16 percent). Approximately 200
and 3,000 people live within 5 km and
10 km of the non-EGU facilities,
respectively. The demographic make-up
of the population within 5 km and 10
km of non-EGU facilities are similar.
Within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU
facilities, there is a higher White
population than the national average (87
percent within 5km and 88 percent
within 10 km versus 60 percent
nationwide) and there is a higher Native
American population than the national
average (2.2 percent within 5 km and
1.0 percent within 10 km versus 0.7
percent nationwide). Concerning the age
distribution within 5 and 10km of the
two non-EGU facilities, the percent of
people aged 65 or older is higher than
the national average (31 percent within
5 km and 36 percent within 10 km
versus 16 percent nationwide).
Additionally, the percent of people
living below the poverty level within 5
km and 10 km of the non-EGU facilities
is higher than the national average (18
percent within 5 km and 17 percent
within 10 km versus 13 percent
nationwide).
TABLE VIII.A.2–1—POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE TWO NON-EGU FACILITIES ASSUMED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL
CONTROLS DUE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL RULE
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average 1
Demographic group
5 km
Race/Ethnicity:
White .........................................................................................................
African American ......................................................................................
Native American .......................................................................................
Other and Multiracial ................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino 2 ...................................................................................
Age:
0–17 Years Old ........................................................................................
18–64 Years Old ......................................................................................
>=65 Years Old ........................................................................................
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level ....................................................
Education:
>=25 Years Old Without a High School Diploma .....................................
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation: ........................................................
Total Population ................................................................................
10 km
National
average
50 km
87
0
2.2
4
7
88
0
1.0
4
7
72
1
3.8
5
19
60
12
0.7
8
19
5
65
31
6
58
36
17
59
24
23
62
16
18
17
14
13
7
8
8
12
0
0
2
5
204
3,193
218,256
328,016,242
1 Demographic percentage is based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
2 To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person who
identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in
the Census.
For additional information on the
EGU or non-EGU proximity analyses,
see section VII.3. of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan as well as the
memorandum Analysis of Demographic
Factors For Populations Living Near
EGU and Non-EGU Facilities, in the
rulemaking docket.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. Outreach
Prior to this proposal and prior to
proposal of the EPA’s Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the EPA initiated a
public outreach effort to gather input
from stakeholder groups likely to be
interested in this action. Specifically,
the EPA hosted an environmental
justice webinar on October 26, 2021, to
share information about the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan and solicit
feedback about potential environmental
justice considerations. The webinar was
attended by over 180 individuals
representing State governments,
federally recognized tribes,
environmental NGOs, higher education
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
institutions, industry, and the EPA.165
Participants were invited to comment
during the webinar or provide written
comments to a pre-regulatory docket.
The webinar was recorded and
distributed to attendees after the event.
The key issues raised by interested
parties is summarized in section VIII.C.
of the EPA’s proposed Good Neighbor
Plan Rulemaking, and the EPA’s
response to these comments regarding
environmental justice considerations are
available in section 6 of the Response
To Comments document for the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan.166 167
165 This does not constitute the EPA’s Tribal
consultation under Executive Order 13175, which
is described in section XI.F. of this document.
166 87 FR 20036 at 20153.
167 ‘‘Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Response to Public Comments on Proposed Rule’’
at 837. Available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668–1127.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts
of the Proposed Rule
In the EIA for this action, the EPA
estimated the health and climate
benefits, compliance costs, and
emissions changes that may result from
the proposed rule for the analysis period
2025 to 2044. The estimated health and
climate benefits and compliance costs
are presented in detail in the EIA. The
EPA notes that for EGUs the estimated
benefits and compliance costs are
directly associated with fully operating
existing SCRs during ozone season; fully
operating existing SNCRs during ozone
season; installing state-of-the-art
combustion controls; imposing a
backstop emissions rate on certain units
that lack SCR controls; and installing
SCR and SNCR post-combustion
controls. The EPA also notes that for
non-EGUs the estimated health benefits
and compliance costs are directly
associated with installing controls to
meet the NOX emissions requirements
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12715
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
presented in section I.B. of this
document.
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed this
action’s emissions budgets using
uniform control stringency represented
by $1,800 per ton of NOX (2016$) in
2025 and $11,000 per ton of NOX
(2016$) in 2027. For non-EGUs, the EPA
developed an analytical framework to
determine which industries and
emissions unit types to include in a
proposed Transport FIP for the 2015
ozone NAAQS transport obligations. A
February 28, 2022, memorandum, titled
‘‘Screening Assessment of Potential
Emissions Reductions, Air Quality
Impacts, and Costs from Non-EGU
Emissions Units for 2026,’’ documents
the analytical framework used to
identify industries and emissions unit
types included in the proposed FIP.
Table IX–1 provides the projected
2025 through 2030, 2035, 2040, and
2044 EGU NOX ozone season emissions
reductions for the proposed rule. For
additional information on emissions
changes, see Table 3–7 and Table 3–8 in
the EIA.
TABLE IX–1—EGU OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS CHANGES (TONS) FOR THE BASELINE RUN AND
PROPOSED RULE FROM 2025–2044
Total emissions
Ozone season NOX
(tons)
Baseline
2025:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2026:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2027:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2028:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2029:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2030:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2035:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2040:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
2044:
5 States ................................................................................................................................
Other States .........................................................................................................................
Nationwide ............................................................................................................................
Change from
baseline run
Proposal
23,701
234,186
257,887
22,243
234,186
256,428
¥1,458
0
¥1,459
23,701
234,186
257,887
22,243
234,186
256,428
¥1,458
0
¥1,459
18,270
189,571
207,840
17,012
189,583
206,595
¥1,258
12
¥1,245
18,270
189,571
207,840
17,012
189,583
206,595
¥1,258
12
¥1,245
18,270
189,571
207,840
17,012
189,583
206,595
¥1,258
12
¥1,245
16,184
150,909
167,093
15,427
150,910
166,337
¥756
0
¥756
5,967
94,061
100,028
5,453
94,053
99,506
¥513
¥8
¥521
5,623
77,971
83,594
4,901
78,010
82,910
¥722
39
¥683
5,271
71,506
76,778
4,549
71,506
76,055
¥722
0
¥722
Note: The 5 States include Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The Other States include the remaining states not covered
by the proposal in the contiguous United States. Nationwide is the total of the 5 States and the Other States.
Table IX–2 provides a summary of the
ozone season NOX emissions reductions
and costs for non-EGUs in Arizona
starting in 2028. We estimated the
emissions reductions and costs for 2026
and assume compliance by 2028. The
analysis in the EIA assumes that the
estimated reductions in 2028 will be the
same in later years.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE IX–2—SUMMARY OF NON-EGU INDUSTRIES, EMISSIONS UNIT TYPES, ASSUMED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES,
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (2016$), OZONE SEASON NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Emissions unit type
Assumed control technologies that
meet proposed emissions limits
Annual costs
(million 2016$)
Ozone season
emissions
reductions
(tons)
Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engine.
Layered Combustion (2-cycle Lean
Burn).
4.3
329
Industry/Industries
Pipeline Transportation of Natural
Gas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12716
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed ozone
season NOX emissions reductions and
the associated costs to the power sector
using IPM and its underlying data and
inputs. For non-EGUs, the EPA prepared
an assessment summarized in the
memorandum titled Non-EGU
Applicability Requirements and
Estimated Emissions Reductions and
Costs_Proposed Supplemental, and the
memorandum includes estimated
emissions reductions for the proposed
rule.
Table IX–3 reflects the estimates of
emissions reductions and the changes in
the cost of supplying electricity for the
proposed rule for EGUs and estimates of
complying with the emissions
requirements for non-EGUs. The costs
presented in Table IX–3 do not include
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting costs.
TABLE IX–3—TOTAL ANNUAL ESTIMATED NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (OZONE SEASON, TONS) AND COMPLIANCE
COSTS (MILLION 2016$), 2025–2044
Emissions reductions
(ozone season, tons)
EGUs
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2035
2040
2044
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
1,459
1,459
1,245
1,245
1,245
756
513
683
722
For this proposed supplemental rule,
the EPA monetizes the health benefits of
avoided ozone and PM2.5-attributable
premature deaths and illnesses by
Non-EGUs
Compliance costs
(million 2016$)
Total
........................
........................
........................
329
329
329
329
329
329
EGUs
1,459
1,459
1,245
1,574
1,574
1,085
842
1,012
1,051
multiplying a benefit per ton coefficient
by the expected State NOX ozone season
and primary PM2.5, NOX and SO2
emissions reductions. The benefit per
Non-EGUs
$1.0
1.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
Total
........................
........................
........................
$4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
$1.0
1.0
3.4
7.7
7.7
5.0
5.0
4.6
4.6
ton calculations for EGUs and non-EGUs
have been combined in Table IX–4.
TABLE IX–4—ESTIMATED MONETIZED HEALTH BENEFITS OF AVOIDED OZONE AND PM2.5-ATTRIBUTABLE PREMATURE
MORTALITY AND ILLNESS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (EGUS AND NON-EGUS), 2025–2044:
MONETIZED BENEFITS QUANTIFIED AS SUM OF AVOIDED MORBIDITY HEALTH EFFECTS AND AVOIDED LONG-TERM
OZONE AND PM2.5 MORTALITY
[3 Percent discount rate; million 2016$] a b
Year
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
Ozone
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
$16
$16
$14
$18
$18
$13
$13
$12
$12
$12
$12
$12
$12
$14
$14
$14
$14
$14
$15
$15
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
PM2.5
$110 .................
$110 .................
$96 ...................
$140 .................
$140 .................
$99 ...................
$99 ...................
$95 ...................
$95 ...................
$95 ...................
$95 ...................
$95 ...................
$95 ...................
$120 .................
$120 .................
$120 .................
$120 .................
$120 .................
$130 .................
$130 .................
$32 and $69 ...................
$32 and $69 ...................
$4.7 and $9.9 .................
$8.3 and $17 ..................
$8.3 and $17 ..................
$5.4 and $11 ..................
$5.4 and $11 ..................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.9 and $9.8 .................
$4.8 and $9.5 .................
$4.8 and $9.5 .................
$4.8 and $9.5 .................
$4.8 and $9.5 .................
$4.8 and $9.5 .................
$6 and $12 .....................
$6 and $12 .....................
Combined total
$48
$48
$19
$26
$26
$18
$18
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$19
$19
$19
$19
$19
$21
$21
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
$180.
$180.
$110.
$160.
$160.
$110.
$110.
$100.
$100.
$100.
$100.
$100.
$100.
$130.
$130.
$130.
$130.
$130.
$140.
$140.
a Values
rounded to two significant figures.
benefits are associated with two point estimates from two different epidemiologic studies. The lower estimates includes ozone mortality
estimated using the pooled Katsouyanni et al. (2009), the Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) short-term risk estimates, and the Wu et al. (2020)
long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk estimate. The higher estimates includes ozone mortality estimated using the Turner et al. (2016) longterm risk estimate and the Pope et al. (2019) long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk estimate. Health benefits are discounted at a rate of 3 and
7 percent over the SAB-recommended 20-year segmented lag. Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating
a present value.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
b The
Table IX–5 shows the estimated
monetary value of the estimated changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
in CO2 emissions from EGUs expected
to occur over 2025–2044 for this
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed rule. The EPA estimated the
dollar value of the CO2-related effects
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12717
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
for each year between 2025 and 2044 by
applying the SC–CO2 estimates to the
estimated changes in CO2 emissions in
the corresponding year.
TABLE IX–5—STREAM OF CLIMATE BENEFITS FROM EGU CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, 2025–2044
[Millions of 2016$]
Discount rate and statistic
Year
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
5% Average
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
3% Average
$0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
0.0
0.0
2.5% Average
$2.1
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.3
¥0.3
¥0.3
¥0.3
¥0.3
0.0
0.0
3% 95th
percentile
$3.0
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
0.0
0.0
$6.2
6.3
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.2
5.3
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.4
¥0.8
¥0.8
¥0.8
¥0.8
¥0.8
0.0
0.0
Note: Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.
The EPA calculates the monetized net
benefits of the proposed rule by
subtracting the estimated monetized
compliance costs from the estimated
monetized health and climate benefits.
The benefits include those to public
health associated with reductions ozone
and PM2.5 concentrations, as well as
those to climate associated with
reductions in GHG emissions. The EPA
presents estimates of the PV of the
monetized benefits and costs over the
20-year period 2025 to 2044. To
calculate the PV of the social net-
Estimates in the table are presented as
rounded values. For the 20-year period
of 2025 to 2044, the PV of the net
benefits, in 2016$ and discounted to
2023, is $270 and $1,800 million when
using a 3 percent discount rate and $180
and $1,100 million when using a 7
percent discount rate. The EAV is $18
and $120 million per year when using
a 3 percent discount rate and $17 and
$110 million when using a 7 percent
discount rate.
benefits of the proposed rule, annual
benefits and costs are discounted to
2023 at 3 percent and 7 discount rates
as recommended by OMB’s Circular A–
4. The EPA also presents the EAV,
which represents a flow of constant
annual values that, had they occurred in
each year from 2025 to 2044, would
yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The
EAV represents the value of a typical
cost or benefit for each year of the
analysis. Table IX–6 provides the
comparison of benefits and costs in PV
and EAV terms for the proposed rule.
TABLE IX–6—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUES AND EQUIVALENT ANNUALIZED VALUES FOR THE 2025–2044 TIMEFRAME
FOR ESTIMATED MONETIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE
[Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
Health benefits
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
3%
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
$45
$44
$17
$23
$22
$15
$15
$13
$13
$12
$12
$12
$11
$12
$12
$11
$11
$11
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
7%
$170 .............
$160 .............
$94 ...............
$140 .............
$130 .............
$89 ...............
$87 ...............
$80 ...............
$78 ...............
$76 ...............
$74 ...............
$71 ...............
$69 ...............
$83 ...............
$81 ...............
$78 ...............
$76 ...............
$74 ...............
Jkt 262001
3%
$38 and $140 .............
$35 and $130 .............
$12 and $72 ...............
$17 and $100 .............
$16 and $97 ...............
$9.9 and $62 ..............
$9.3 and $58 ..............
$7.8 and $51 ..............
$7.3 and $47 ..............
$6.8 and $44 ..............
$6.4 and $41 ..............
$6.0 and $39 ..............
$5.6 and $36 ..............
$6.3 and $43 ..............
$5.9 and $40 ..............
$5.5 and $38 ..............
$5.1 and $35 ..............
$4.8 and $33 ..............
PO 00000
Cost c
Climate
benefits
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
$1.9
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
¥0.2
Sfmt 4702
3%
$1.0
1.0
3.0
6.6
6.4
4.1
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.6
Net benefits
7%
$0.9
0.9
2.6
5.5
5.1
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
3%
$46 and $170 .............
$45 and $160 .............
$15 and $92 ...............
$17 and $130 .............
$17 and $130 .............
$12 and $87 ...............
$12 and $84 ...............
$9.0 and $76 ..............
$8.8 and $74 ..............
$8.5 and $72 ..............
$8.2 and $70 ..............
$8.0 and $68 ..............
$7.8 and $66 ..............
$9.0 and $80 ..............
$8.7 and $78 ..............
$8.4 and $75 ..............
$8.2 and $73 ..............
$8.0 and $71 ..............
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
7%
$39 and $140.
$36 and $130.
$11 and $71.
$13 and $99.
$12 and $93.
$8.2 and $60.
$7.7 and $56.
$5.0 and $48.
$4.7 and $45.
$4.4 and $42.
$4.1 and $39.
$3.8 and $360.
$3.6 and $34.
$4.4 and $41.
$4.1 and $38.
$3.9 and $36.
$3.6 and $34.
$3.4 and $31.
12718
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX–6—SUMMARY OF PRESENT VALUES AND EQUIVALENT ANNUALIZED VALUES FOR THE 2025–2044 TIMEFRAME
FOR ESTIMATED MONETIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued
[Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
Health benefits
3%
Net benefits
3%
7%
2043 ..................................
2044 ..................................
$12 and $79 ...............
$11 and $76 ...............
$4.8 and $31 ..............
$4.4 and $29 ..............
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.7
1.3
1.2
$8.9 and $76 ..............
$8.6 and $74 ..............
$3.5 and $30.
$3.2 and $28.
PV 2025–2044 ...........
EAV 2025–2044 .........
$330 and $1,900 ........
$22 and $130 .............
$210 and $1,200 ........
$20 and $110 .............
9.3
0.6
67
4.5
45
4.2
$270 and $1,800 ........
$18 and $120 .............
$180 and $1,100.
$17 and $110.
a Rows
3%
7%
3%
7%
may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to
Existing Regulatory Text
This section describes proposed
amendments to the regulatory text in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to
apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s
requirements to emissions sources in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee. The proposed CFR
amendments relating to EGUs and to
non-EGUs are addressed in section X.A.
and section X.B. of this document,
respectively. In section X.C. of this
document, the EPA describes additional
proposed CFR amendments that would
make technical corrections or
clarifications to the regulatory text as
finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. The EPA has included documents
showing the proposed amendments in
redline-strikeout format in the docket
for this proposed action.
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan’s Requirements to
EGUs in Additional States
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Cost c
Climate
benefits
The primary CFR amendments that
would apply the Federal Good Neighbor
Plans requirements to EGUs in Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee would be made in the FIP
provisions addressing states’ good
neighbor obligations related to ozone in
40 CFR part 52 as well as in the
regulations for the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 Trading Program in 40
CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG. In
addition, amendments to address the
transition of the EGUs in Iowa, Kansas,
and Tennessee from the Group 2 trading
program to the Group 3 trading program
would be made in the regulations for the
Group 2 trading program in 40 CFR part
97, subpart EEEEE, and conforming
revisions would be made in the
regulations for the Group 1 trading
program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart
BBBBB.
The FIP provisions that identify the
states whose EGU sources must
participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
trading programs with respect to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
specified control periods to address
transported ozone pollution are set forth
at § 52.38(b)(2). The proposed expansion
of the applicability of the Group 3
trading program to sources in the five
newly added states starting with the
2025 control period would be
implemented at § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E). The
proposed end to the applicability of the
Group 2 trading program (with the
exception of certain provisions) for
sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee
after the 2024 control period would be
implemented at § 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A).
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA retained several previously
established options for states to revise
their SIPs to modify or replace the FIPs
applicable to their sources while
continuing to use the Group 3 trading
program as the mechanism for meeting
the states’ good neighbor obligations.
Under this proposal, the provision at
§ 52.38(b)(10) establishing an option for
a State to replace allowance allocations
for a single control period would be
amended to make the option available
for the five newly added states for the
2026 control period,168 with
coordinated revisions to the Group 3
trading program regulations as
discussed later in this section X.A. The
provisions at § 52.38(b)(11) and (12)
establishing options for a State to adopt
an abbreviated or full SIP revision
starting with the 2025 control period
would remain available to states already
covered by the Group 3 trading program
and would be amended to make the
options available to the newly added
states starting with the 2027 control
period.
The general FIP provisions applicable
to all states covered by this rule as set
forth in § 52.38(b)(2) would be
replicated in the state-specific subparts
of 40 CFR part 52 for each of the five
states that the EPA is proposing to add
168 The provision as it exists before the proposed
amendments is obsolete because no State elected to
use the provision to establish state-determined
allocations for the 2024 control period.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to the Group 3 trading program.169 In
each such state-specific CFR subpart,
provisions would be added indicating
that sources in the State would be
required to participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program with respect to emissions
starting in 2025. Provisions would also
be added repeating the substance of
§ 52.38(b)(13)(i), which provides that
the Administrator’s full and
unconditional approval of a full SIP
revision correcting the same SIP
deficiency that is the basis for a FIP
promulgated in this rulemaking would
cause the FIP to no longer apply to
sources subject to the State’s CAA
implementation planning authority, and
§ 52.38(b)(14)(ii), which provides the
EPA with authority to complete
recordation of EPA-determined
allowance allocations for any control
period for which the EPA has already
started such recordation
notwithstanding the approval of a
State’s SIP revision establishing statedetermined allowance allocations.
For each of the three states that the
EPA is proposing to remove from the
Group 2 trading program, the provisions
of the state-specific CFR subparts
indicating that sources in the State are
required to participate in that trading
program would be revised to end that
requirement with respect to emissions
after 2024, and a further provision
would be added repeating the substance
of § 52.38(b)(14)(iii), which identifies
certain provisions that continue to
apply to sources and allowances
notwithstanding discontinuation of a
trading program with respect to a
particular state. In addition, obsolete
text concerning the unexercised option
to adopt full SIP revisions to replace the
FIPs issued under the CSAPR Update
would be removed.
To implement the geographic
expansion of the Group 3 trading
program and the trading budgets
169 See proposed §§ 52.154(a) (Arizona), 52.840(b)
(Iowa), 52.882(b) (Kansas), 52.1641 (New Mexico),
and 52.2240(e) (Tennessee).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
proposed under the new and amended
FIPs in this rulemaking, several sections
of the Group 3 trading program
regulations would be amended.
Revisions identifying the applicable
control periods, the starting years for
certain allocation provisions, the
deadlines for certification of monitoring
systems, and the deadlines for
commencement of quarterly reporting
for sources in the newly added states
would be made at §§ 97.1006(c)(3),
97.1012, 97.1030(b)(1), and
97.1034(d)(2)(i), respectively. Revisions
identifying the new or revised budgets,
new unit set-aside percentages, and
variability limits under the Group 3
trading program for the control periods
starting in 2025 for the newly added
states would be made at § 97.1010,
while revisions ending the
corresponding provisions under the
Group 2 trading program for control
periods after 2024 would be made at
§ 97.810. Revisions to § 97.1021 would
establish the schedule for recording
unit-level allocations of allowances to
sources in the newly added states for
the 2025 and 2026 control periods,
including the schedule that would
apply with respect to allocations for the
2026 control period if a State exercises
the proposed option to establish statedetermined allocations for that control
period.
The proposed creation of an
additional Group 3 allowance bank for
the 2025 control period through the
conversion of banked 2017–2024 Group
2 allowances as discussed in section
VII.A.5. of this document would be
implemented at a new § 97.826(f)(1).170
Related provisions addressing the use of
Group 3 allowances to satisfy
compliance obligations under the Group
1 trading program or the Group 2
trading program arising after the
conversion would be implemented at
new §§ 97.526(e)(4) and 97.826(g)(3),
respectively. Related provisions
addressing delayed recordation of
allocations of Group 1 or Group 2
allowances after the conversion would
be implemented at new
§§ 97.526(d)(2)(iv) and 97.826(f)(2),
respectively. A coordinating
amendment that excludes the emissions
budgets of the newly added states from
the Group 3 allowance bank
recalibration target for the 2025 control
period would be implemented at
§ 97.1026(d)(2).
Finally, the EPA proposes to make
conforming revisions to cross-references
necessitated by the other amendments
already described at § 52.38(b)(14) and
170 The provision currently designated as
§ 97.826(f) would be redesignated as § 97.826(g).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
in several sections of the regulations for
the Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
trading programs.
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan’s Requirements to
Non-EGUs in Additional States
The CFR amendments that would
apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plans
requirements to non-EGUs in Arizona
would be made in the FIP provisions for
non-EGUs promulgated in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan in 40 CFR 52.40
through 52.46. A proposed amendment
to § 52.40(c)(2) would extend
applicability of the non-EGU
requirements under all seven of these
CFR sections to Arizona emissions
sources starting with the 2027 control
period. This provision would be
substantively replicated in the statespecific subpart of 40 CFR part 52 for
Arizona at proposed § 52.154(b).
In addition, each provision in
§§ 52.40 through 52.46 that either
repeats the general applicability
deadline from § 52.40(c)(2) or that
establishes a deadline for a specific
requirement or option would be revised
to clearly indicate the applicable
deadline for sources in Arizona as well
as the applicable deadline for sources in
states already covered by the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan’s requirements. In
most cases, the EPA is proposing to
establish the deadlines for Arizona
sources 1 year after the comparable
deadlines for sources in the other states.
However, in cases where the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan established a
deadline in terms of a certain interval
after the Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s
effective date, the EPA is proposing to
similarly establish a comparable
deadline for Arizona sources in terms of
the same interval after the effective date
of a final rule in this rulemaking.
C. Technical Corrections and
Clarifications to Previously Finalized
Regulatory Text
In addition to the amendments
described in sections X.A. and X.B. for
this document to implement the
proposed extension of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan’s requirements to
emissions sources in additional states,
the EPA is also proposing to make
various technical corrections and
clarifications to the previously finalized
regulatory text. Most of the revisions
would replace incorrect crossreferences, improve grammar and
clarity, or fix typographical errors.
These corrections are not individually
described in this preamble but are
shown in the documents included in the
docket for this rulemaking, which show
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12719
all proposed changes to the regulatory
text in redline-strikeout format.
Beyond the corrections of crossreferences and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes
to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory
text for EGUs:
• The backstop daily NOX emissions
rate provisions at §§ 97.1006(c)(1)(i)(B)
and 97.1024(b)(1)(ii) would be revised
to clarify that the 50-ton threshold that
must be crossed before cumulative
exceedances of the backstop daily rate
require surrender of extra allowances
applies individually to each unit subject
to the backstop rate provisions, as
discussed in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan preamble at 88 FR 36791–93, and
not to all the units at a source on a
collective basis.
• The backstop daily NOX emissions
rate provisions at § 97.1024(b)(3) would
be revised to avoid inadvertently
applying the backstop emissions rate
provisions in control periods after 2029
to units without installed SCR controls
in states where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan’s identified emissions
control stringency does not include the
installation of new SCR controls.
• The ‘‘maximum controlled
baseline’’ language in the allowance
allocation provisions at
§§ 97.1011(b)(4)(ii) and 97.1012(a)(4)(ii)
would be revised to avoid inadvertently
applying SCR-based assumptions in the
calculations of allowance allocations to
units without installed SCR controls in
states where the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan’s identified emissions control
stringency does not include the
installation of new SCR controls.
• The secondary emissions limitation
provisions at § 97.1025(c)(1) would be
revised to clarify that the provisions do
not apply before the 2024 control
period, as stated in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36798
and consistent with the provisions for
the timing of compliance requirements
at § 97.1006(c)(3)(ii).
• The provisions to create an initial
allowance bank for states transitioning
to the Group 3 trading program under
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan at
§ 97.826(e)(1)(ii)(B) would be revised to
clarify that the initial bank target used
to determine the conversion factor is
calculated as 21 percent of the sum of
the 2024 trading budgets under
§ 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for the relevant states,
not as the potentially different sum of
the final 2024 variability limits under
§ 97.1010(e) for the relevant states,
because the final 2024 variability limit
values under § 97.1010(e) would not be
known until after the deadline for
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12720
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
carrying out the bank conversion
procedure.
• The provision at
§ 52.38(b)(14)(iii)(A) that clarifies the
continued applicability of the EPA’s
allowance housekeeping authority after
the sources in a State no longer
participate in a given trading program
would be revised to include Group 3
allowances, in light of the interim
transition of sources in several states out
of the Group 3 trading program in
response to judicial stay orders.
Beyond the corrections of crossreferences and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes
to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory
text for non-EGUs:
• The definition of ‘‘ozone season’’
currently provided as part of the general
requirements of the non-EGU
regulations at § 52.40(c)(1) would be
broken out as a freestanding definition
and relocated to § 52.40(b). The revision
would clarify the regulations.
• The recordkeeping provisions at
§§ 52.41(f), 52.42(e), 52.43(f), 52.44(h)(1)
through (3), 52.45(e)(1), and 52.46(f)
would be revised by adding language to
the introductory text stating that the
recordkeeping requirements apply only
with respect to operations during the
ozone season (unless stated otherwise),
consistent with the existing regulations
in the general recordkeeping
requirements at § 52.40(c)(3). The
revisions would also add crossreferences to the general recordkeeping
requirements at § 52.40(c)(3) and (f),
where additional details on
recordkeeping requirements are
provided. Relatedly, the recordkeeping
provisions at § 52.45(e)(2) for low-use
industrial boilers would be revised to
correctly cross-reference § 52.40(f) (but
not § 52.40(c)(3)) and to include
language stating that the recordkeeping
requirements of that provision apply
with respect to operations throughout
the calendar year, consistent with the
qualification criteria for the low-use
exemption. The revisions would clarify
the regulations.
• Two types of corrections would be
made to the reporting provisions at
§§ 52.40(g), 52.41(g), 52.42(f), 52.43(g),
52.44(i), 52.45(f), and 52.46(g). First, a
statement would be added to § 52.40(g)
clarifying that requirements to use the
EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA apply with respect
to not only annual reports but also
excess emissions reports, consistent
with similar statements already
included in the industry-specific
reporting provisions. Second, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
industry-specific reporting provisions
for excess emissions reports and annual
reports would be revised to remove a
statement that the reports are required
to be submitted in pdf format, which is
not correct in all situations, and to add
a statement indicating that the
appropriate submission instructions for
reports submitted via CEDRI will be
provided in CEDRI. In conjunction with
the additional cross-reference
corrections that the EPA is proposing to
make in this rulemaking (as discussed at
the beginning of this section X.C.), each
of the industry-specific reporting
provisions would include a correct
cross-reference to the general reporting
provisions § 52.40(g), where information
on the report format requirements for
various situations is set forth in greater
detail. The revisions would clarify the
regulations.
• Several provisions concerning nonreport submissions—that is, optional or
required submissions other than
required excess emissions reports and
annual reports—would be revised to
indicate that sources must make the
submissions to the EPA via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA. First, provisions
at §§ 52.40(e)(1), 52.41(b)(1)(ii),
52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B), and 52.45(d)(2)(vii)
which do not currently reflect the EPA’s
intent for all submissions to be made
electronically would be revised to
require use of the appropriate standard
electronic submission mechanisms.
Second, a provision at § 52.43(d)(1)
which currently identifies the standard
electronic submission mechanisms for
reports would be revised to identify the
standard electronic submission
mechanisms for non-report submissions.
Finally, the provision currently
designated as § 52.45(d)(4) 171 which
currently identifies only CEDRI would
be revised to also include the standard
reference to an analogous electronic
submission system. The revisions would
make these provisions consistent with
the other provisions governing nonreport submissions throughout the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan’s non-EGU
regulations and would clarify the
regulations. See §§ 52.40(d)(4), (d)(9)(ii),
and (e)(7)(ii); 52.41(d); 52.42(g)(2);
52.43(d)(1), (g)(1), and (h)(2); and
52.44(d)(1), (e)(1), and (j)(2).
• In the regulations governing
compliance extension requests at
§ 52.40(d), the regulations governing
case-by-case emissions limit requests at
§ 52.40(e), and the regulations governing
steel reheat furnace work plan
submissions at § 52.43(d)(4), multiple
171 The EPA is proposing to redesignate this
provision as § 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
revisions would be made to the
provisions concerning notifications
from the EPA to sources. First, each of
the provisions specifically identifying
CEDRI as a mechanism for electronic
notifications from the EPA would be
revised to instead provide for the EPA’s
notifications to be made more generally
‘‘in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the
EPA,’’ because CEDRI is not currently
capable of serving this purpose. Second,
a provision at § 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B) that
does not currently identify any
electronic notification mechanism
would be revised to include the same
general reference to ‘‘an electronic
submission system provided by the
EPA’’ as the other notification
provisions. Third, current phrases in
§§ 52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6) and
52.43(d)(4)(ii) calling for the
notifications to be made publicly
available would be removed as overly
broad, because some of the notifications
made under those paragraphs do not
concern final Agency decisions but
instead concern non-final expressions of
intent which the Agency did not mean
to include within the scope of the
public availability requirements.
Finally, the revisions would add a new
sentence to § 52.43(d)(4)(ii) that requires
the relevant final decisions under that
paragraph to be made publicly available
but does not require any non-final
expressions of intent to be made
publicly available. See also
§ 52.43(d)(4)(iv) (requiring other types of
final decisions to be made publicly
available). In the case of § 52.40(d)(8)
and (e)(6), the removed phrases about
public availability requirements would
not be replaced because other related
provisions already require the relevant
final decisions under those paragraphs
to be made publicly available. See
§ 52.40(d)(6) and (e)(4); see also
§ 52.40(d)(10) and (e)(8) (requiring other
types of final decisions to be made
publicly available). The revisions would
clarify the regulations.
• The definition of ‘‘facility’’ in the
regulations for natural gas pipeline
engines at § 52.41(a) would be revised to
refer to ‘‘the set of states’’ instead of
‘‘the 20 states’’ covered by the non-EGU
regulations. The revision would clarify
the regulations and maintain the intent
of the current definition as finalized in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, which
was to ensure that any facility-wide
averaging plans do not extend beyond
the geographic area covered by the
regulations. See 88 FR 36824.
• The provisions on testing and
monitoring requirements for natural gas
pipeline engines at § 52.43(e) would be
revised to correctly indicate the terms of
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the partial exemption created for certain
engines in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. As discussed in the rulemaking
record, the EPA determined that it is
appropriate to exempt engines that
operate primarily during peak hours
outside the ozone season and that
operate for 50 hours or less during the
ozone season from most of the testing
and monitoring requirements applicable
to other engines, with the exception of
the requirement for an initial
performance test. See EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668–1127, Federal ‘‘Good
Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Response to Public
Comments on Proposed Rule, at 657. As
revised, the provision at § 52.43(e)(6)
would correctly specify which testing
and monitoring requirements are
covered by the exemption and would
state the correct ozone season operating
hour ceiling of 50 hours. Also, the
largely duplicative provision currently
at § 52.43(e)(3)(iii) would be removed
and the provision currently designated
as § 52.43(e)(3)(iv) would be
redesignated as § 52.43(e)(3)(iii). The
revisions would bring the regulations
into agreement with the EPA’s intent as
discussed in the rulemaking record and
improve clarity.
• The definitions section of the
regulations for cement kilns at § 52.42(a)
would be revised by removing a
definition of ‘‘cement plant’’ because
the term is not used in the final
regulations.
• The applicability provisions of the
regulations covering steel reheat
furnaces at § 52.43(b) would be revised
to eliminate the possibility of an
incorrect inference that a unit
previously affected under the
regulations might no longer be affected
after installation of low-NOX burners.
The EPA’s intent for the regulations to
remain in effect for a given affected unit
after any installation of low-NOX
burners is clear from the overall
structure of the regulations, including
the requirements for work plans to set
emissions limits achieving a minimum
40 percent reduction from baseline
emissions levels for affected units based
on the installation of low-NOX burners
or alternative low-NOX technologies and
the requirements for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure
compliance with those limits following
installation. See § 52.43(d) through (g).
There is also no mention anywhere in
the regulations or in the preamble of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan of any
possibility that a unit’s status could
change from affected to non-affected
following the installation of low-NOX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
burners. The revision would clarify the
regulations.
• The initial notification provisions
of the regulations covering steel reheat
furnaces at § 52.43(h)(2) would be
revised to add a phrase stating that the
initial notification requirement does not
apply to sources that already have lowNOX burners installed. The revision
would clarify the regulations by making
the description of affected units in this
paragraph consistent with the
applicability criteria set forth in
§ 52.43(b).
• The emissions limitations
provisions for glass manufacturing
furnaces at § 52.44(c) would be revised
to clarify how and when the exemptions
during startup, shutdown and idling
apply. As currently written, the
provision could be interpreted as
allowing an all-or-none package of
shutdown and idling exemptions for the
2026 ozone season, if the regulations’
shutdown and idling requirements are
all met, and a broader all-or-none
package of startup, shutdown, and
idling exemptions for subsequent ozone
seasons, if the regulations’ startup,
shutdown, and idling requirements are
all met. The revised language would
clarify that the exemptions during
startup, shutdown, and idling are each
available independently of the other
exemptions if the appropriate
requirements are met, and that this is
the case for all ozone seasons. The
EPA’s intent for the startup, shutdown,
and idling exemptions to be
independent of one another is evident
from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble. See, e.g., 88 FR 36831 (‘‘The
emissions limits for glass melting
furnaces in § 52.44(c) do not apply
during periods of start-up, shutdown,
and/or idling at affected units that
comply instead with the alternative
requirements for start-up, shutdown,
and/or idling periods specified in
§ 52.44(d), (e), and/or (f), respectively.’’
(emphasis added)). Moreover, the
preamble contains no discussion
indicating any intent for the exemptions
to apply differently in the 2026 ozone
season than in subsequent ozone
seasons. The revisions would clarify the
regulations.
• In the recordkeeping provisions for
glass manufacturing furnaces at
§ 52.44(h), a provision concerning
operating parameters would be
redesignated from § 52.44(h)(1)(vii)(D)
to § 52.44(h)(1)(viii) to correctly indicate
that the provision’s application is not
limited to situations where continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS)
are being used, and the succeeding
subparagraphs of § 52.44(h)(1) would be
renumbered accordingly. The correction
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12721
is needed because the affected units are
required to use the operating parameters
for monitoring purposes only when
CEMS are not being used. See
§ 52.44(g)(2) and (3).
• The provisions of the industrial
boiler testing and monitoring
requirements at § 52.45(d)(2)(vii)
concerning requests for alternative
monitoring requirements would be
revised to explicitly require that if such
a request is approved, the facility must
request that the relevant permitting
Agency incorporate the approved
monitoring procedure into the facility’s
title V permit. The revision would
ensure consistency with other
provisions of the non-EGU regulations
that call for facility-specific
requirements to be incorporated into the
facility’s title V permits. See
§§ 52.40(d)(5) and (e)(3) and
52.45(d)(4).172 The revision would also
carry out the Agency’s broader intent
expressed in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan for facilities’ applicable
requirements to be incorporated into
their title V permits. See 88 FR 36844.
• The provisions concerning the
required annual reports for industrial
boilers at § 52.45(f) would be revised to
identify the required contents of the
reports, which would be the records
required under the applicable
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 52.45(e), including records of CEMS
data or operating parameters required
under § 52.45(d). The required contents
of the annual reports for industrial
boilers would be fully consistent with
the required contents of the annual
reports for the other types of non-EGU
sources covered by the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. See §§ 52.41(g)(3),
52.42(f)(3), 52.43(g)(4), 52.44(i)(3), and
52.46(g)(2). The revision would clarify
the regulations by filling an obviously
unintended gap, because the regulations
currently set forth a requirement for
submission of annual reports but lack
any description of what the required
reports should contain. In addition,
because the required contents of the
annual reports would include the
CEMS-related data that are currently
identified as the contents of a separate
reporting requirement in § 52.45(f)(3),
that separate reporting requirement
would be eliminated as redundant, and
the annual report provision would be
redesignated as § 52.45(f)(3).
• The definitions section of the
municipal waste combustor regulations
at § 52.46(a) would be revised to include
a definition of ‘‘municipal solid waste’’
matching the definition of the same
172 The EPA is proposing to redesignate
§ 52.45(d)(4) as § 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12722
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
term in the standards of performance for
new large municipal waste combustors
at 40 CFR 60.51b. The portions of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble
discussing the requirements for
municipal waste combustors contain no
discussion of any intention to introduce
a definition of municipal solid waste for
these regulations differing from the
definition included in the EPA’s other
regulations for large municipal waste
combustors. See 88 FR 36836–38.
Addition of the definition would clarify
the regulations. Also, definitions in
§ 52.46(a) for ‘‘mass burn refractory
municipal waste combustor’’, ‘‘mass
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste
combustor’’, and ‘‘mass burn waterwall
municipal waste combustor’’ would be
removed because the terms are not used
in the final regulation.
• Several provisions of the
regulations for municipal waste
combustors at § 52.46 would be revised
to better implement the EPA’s intent
concerning the treatment of emissions
during periods of startup and shutdown.
As indicated in the Final Good Neighbor
Plan preamble at 88 FR 36837, the EPA
intended to address startup and
shutdown emissions following an
approach previously adopted in the
standards of performance for
commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) units at 40 CFR
part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD.
Under this approach, a single set of
emissions limits applies at all times and
the calculations of average emissions
rates used to determine compliance
with the stated emissions limits use the
data measured in all operating hours,
including periods of startup and
shutdown, but unlike the emissions data
measured at other times, the emissions
data measured during periods of startup
and shutdown are not required to be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 60.2145(j)(2)(i) and (u)(1);
60.2165(n)(4) and (7); 60.2710(j)(2)(i)
and (u)(1); and 60.2730(n)(4) and (7). To
implement this intended approach in
§ 52.46, paragraphs (c) and (e)(2)(vi)
would be revised to clarify that a single
set of 24-hour block average emission
limits and 30-day rolling average
emissions limits applies at all times,
subject to differences in oxygen
correction requirements for emissions
data measured in periods of startup and
shutdown, while paragraphs (d) and
(e)(3) would be revised to remove
separate emissions limits and
monitoring requirements applicable
only to periods of startup and
shutdown. The revised regulations
would implement the EPA’s expressed
intent concerning the treatment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
emissions during startup and shutdown
more accurately than the existing
regulations.
• The provisions on testing and
monitoring requirements for municipal
waste combustors at § 52.46(e)(vi)
would be revised to clarify that where
a source selects carbon dioxide for use
in diluent corrections, the procedures
used to determine the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels would be the procedures set forth
for the same purpose in the standards of
performance for new large municipal
waste combustors at 40 CFR
60.58b(b)(6). This revision would
correct an unintended omission and is
consistent with the EPA’s similar
incorporation of aspects of those
standards of performance in other
provisions of the testing and monitoring
requirements for municipal waste
combustors at § 52.46(e)(2)(ii) and (3)(i).
• The reporting provisions for
municipal waste combustors at
§ 52.46(g) would be revised to add a
provision for excess emissions reports
parallel to the excess emissions report
provisions for each of the other nonEGU source categories. The EPA
expressly indicated the intent to require
excess emissions reports from all nonEGU source categories, including
municipal waste combustors, in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble.
See 88 FR 36820. The revision would
correct an inadvertent omission and
clarify the regulations.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory
Review
This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order
12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the
Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA
prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this
action. This analysis, ‘‘Economic Impact
Assessment for the Proposed
Supplemental Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ Requirements for the 2015 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ is briefly summarized in
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section IX of this document and is also
available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for
Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB
under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned
EPA ICR number 2792.01. The EPA has
placed a copy of the ICR in the docket
for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The EPA is proposing an ICR, related
specifically to EGUs, for this proposal.
The proposed rule would amend the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
trading program addressing seasonal
NOX emissions in various states. Under
the proposed amendments, all EGU
sources located in states covered by the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
unaffected by stay orders would remain
in the Group 3 trading program.
Additionally, EGU sources in three
states (Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee)
currently covered by the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
would transition from the Group 2
program to the revised Group 3 trading
program beginning with the 2025 ozone
season. Further, sources in Arizona and
New Mexico not currently covered by
any CSAPR NOX ozone season trading
program would join the revised Group
3 trading program. In total, EGU sources
in 15 states would now be covered by
the Group 3 program.
There is an existing ICR (OMB Control
Number 2060–0667), that includes
information collection requirements
placed on EGU sources for the six CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
trading programs addressing sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions, annual NOX
emissions, or seasonal NOX emissions in
various sets of states, and the Texas SO2
trading program which is modeled after
CSAPR. Additionally, the EPA
submitted an EGU ICR under the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (OMB
Control Number 2060–0745). The ICR in
this proposal accounts for the additional
respondent burden related to the
addition sources in the five states to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Group 3 trading
program.
The principal information collection
requirements under the CSAPR and
Texas trading programs relate to the
monitoring and reporting of emissions
and associated data in accordance with
40 CFR part 75. Other information
collection requirements under the
programs concern the submittal of
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
information necessary to allocate and
transfer emissions allowances and the
submittal of certificates of
representation and other typically onetime registration forms.
Affected sources under the CSAPR
and Texas trading programs are
generally stationary, fossil fuel-fired
boilers and combustion turbines serving
generators larger than 25 MW producing
electricity for sale. Most of these
affected sources are also subject to the
Acid Rain Program (ARP). The
information collection requirements
under the CSAPR and Texas trading
programs and the ARP substantially
overlap and are fully integrated. The
burden and costs of overlapping
requirements are accounted for in the
ARP ICR (OMB Control Number 2060–
0258). Thus, this ICR accounts for
information collection burden and costs
under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 trading program that are
incremental to the burden and costs
already accounted for in both the ARP
and CSAPR ICRs.
For most sources already reporting
data under the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 or CSAPR NOX Ozone
Group 2 trading programs, there would
be no incremental burden or cost, as
reporting requirements will remain
identical. Certain sources with a
common stack configuration and/or
those that are large, coal-fired EGUs,
will be subject to additional emissions
reporting requirements under the
proposed rule. These sources will need
to make a one-time monitoring plan and
Data Acquisition and Handling System
(DAHS) update to meet the additional
reporting requirements. There is some
incremental cost and burden for those
sources in the two states not currently
reporting data under a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season program. Affected
sources in Arizona and New Mexico
that are already reporting data as part of
the Acid Rain Program only require
monitoring plan and DAHS updates. For
the units that already report to EPA
under the Acid Rain Program or the
NOX SIP Call, with the exception of any
one-time costs to update monitoring
plans and DAHS, all information
collection costs and burden are already
reflected in the previously approved
ICRs for those other rules (OMB Control
Nos. 2060–0258 and 2060–0445).
In total, there are an estimated 23
units in Arizona and New Mexico that
do not already report data to EPA
according to 40 CFR part 75 and that
would need to implement one of the
Part 75 monitoring methodologies
including certification of monitoring
systems or implementation of the low
mass emissions methodology. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
units would also require monitoring
plan and DAHS updates. Of these 23
units, nine units would be expected to
adopt low mass emissions (LME) as the
monitoring method and 14 would be
expected to adopt NOX CEMS/Appendix
D monitoring methods.
Respondents/affected entities:
Industry respondents are stationary,
fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion
turbines serving electricity generators
subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading
programs, as well as non-source entities
voluntarily participating in allowance
trading activities. Potential State
respondents are states that can elect to
submit state-determined allowance
allocations for sources located in their
states.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Industry respondents: voluntary and
mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) of
the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents:
EPA estimates that there would be 64
industry respondents.
Frequency of response: on occasion,
quarterly, and annually.
Total estimated additional burden:
7,538 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
Total estimated additional cost:
$1,243,126 (per year); includes $593,874
annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also
send your ICR-related comments to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than March 18, 2024. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule.
2. Information Collection Request for
Non-Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule are included
within OMB ICR Number 2060–0744,
ICR for the Final Rule, Federal ‘‘Good
Neighbor Plan’’ for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12723
Standards: Transport Obligations for
non-Electric Generating Units. The EPA
submitted this ICR to OMB under the
PRA during the development of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In this
action, the EPA proposes to extend the
non-EGU regulatory requirements to
affected units within the State of
Arizona under the same rationale
provided in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. Because the respondent pool in
this action is not well-defined and
because the number of affected nonEGU sources in Arizona estimated to
install controls is fewer than ten, we are
not proposing to develop a new ICR or
revise the existing ICR at this time. We
will, however, revise the ICR to include
any covered non-EGU sources in
Arizona when we renew the ICR. The
EPA has filed a copy of the non-EGU
ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here.
ICR No. 2060–0744 is an existing ICR
that addresses the burden associated
with new regulatory requirements under
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Owners and operators of certain nonEGU industry stationary sources will
potentially modify or install new
emissions controls and associated
monitoring systems to meet the NOX
emissions limits of this final rule. The
burden in ICR 2060–0744 reflects the
new monitoring, calibrating,
recordkeeping, reporting and testing
activities required of covered industrial
sources, which we are collecting to
ensure compliance with the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. In accordance with
the CAA Amendments of 1990, any
monitoring information to be submitted
by sources is a matter of public record.
Information received and identified by
owners or operators as CBI and
approved as CBI by the EPA, in
accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1,
part 2, subpart B, shall be maintained
appropriately (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by
43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR
17674, March 23, 1979).
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents/affected entities are the
owners/operators of certain non-EGU
industry sources in the following
industry sectors: furnaces in Glass and
Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers
and furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reciprocating internal
combustion engines in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; and
boilers in Metal Ore Mining, Basic
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12724
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
combustors and incinerators in Solid
Waste Combustors and Incinerators.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Voluntary and mandatory. (Sections
110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA). Data
recorded or reported by respondents are
required by the final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.
Estimated number of respondents:
3,328.
Frequency of response: The specific
frequency for each information
collection activity within the non-EGU
ICR is shown at the end of the ICR
document in Tables 1 through 18. In
general, the frequency varies across the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting activities. Some recordkeeping
such as work plan preparation is a onetime activity whereas pipeline engine
maintenance recordkeeping is
conducted quarterly. Reporting
frequency is on an annual basis.
Total estimated burden: 11,481 hours
(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $3,823,000
(average per year); includes $2,400,000
annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. The small entities
subject to the requirements of this
action are small businesses, which
includes EGUs and non-EGUs and are
briefly described below. In 2028, the
EPA identified a total of four EGUs
owned by small entities affected by the
proposed rule. Of these, no small
entities are estimated to have costs
greater than 1 percent of revenues.
The Agency has determined that there
is not a significant number of small
entities potentially affected by the
proposed rule that will have compliance
costs greater than 1 percent of annual
revenues during the compliance period.
The EPA has concluded that there is not
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for
this proposed rule overall. Details of
this analysis are presented in section 3
of the EIA, which is in the public
docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any State, local or Tribal government.
The action imposes no enforceable duty
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
on any state, local or tribal governments
or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action has Tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized Tribal
governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
The EPA is proposing a finding that
interstate transport of ozone precursor
emissions from five upwind states
(Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee) is interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in other states. The EPA is proposing
FIP requirements to eliminate interstate
transport of ozone precursors from these
five states. Under CAA section
301(d)(4), the EPA is proposing to
extend FIP requirements to apply in
Indian country located within the
upwind geography of the final rule,
including Indian reservation lands and
other areas of Indian country over
which the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. The EPA’s proposed
determinations in this regard are
described further in section V.B.,
Application of Rule in Indian Country
and Necessary or Appropriate Finding.
The EPA proposes that all covered
existing and new EGU and non-EGU
sources that are located in the ‘‘301(d)
FIP’’ areas within the geographic
boundaries of the covered states, and
which would be subject to this rule if
located within areas subject to State
CAA planning authority, should be
included in this rule. To the EPA’s
knowledge, two covered existing EGU or
non-EGU sources are located within the
301(d) FIP areas: the South Point Energy
Center located on the Fort Mojave
Reservation, and the Four Corners
Power Plant on the Navajo Reservation.
These EGU sources are geographically
located within the borders of Arizona
and New Mexico, respectively. This
action has Tribal implication because of
the extension of FIP requirements into
Indian country and because, in general,
tribes have a vested interest in how this
final rule would affect air quality.
The EPA consulted with Tribal
officials under the EPA Policy on
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes early in the process of
developing the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development.
The EPA hosted an environmental
justice webinar on October 26, 2021,
that was attended by State regulatory
authorities, environmental groups,
federally recognized tribes, and small
business stakeholders. Summaries of
prior consultations are included in the
docket for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668). The EPA will also continue
to consult with the governments of the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of the Fort
Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation
of the Navajo Reservation, and plans to
further consult with any other Tribal
officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes early in the process of
developing this proposed regulation to
solicit meaningful and timely input into
its development. The EPA plans to issue
Tribal consultation letters addressed to
the appropriate tribes in [Month Year]
after the proposed rule is signed.
Consultation summaries will be
included in the docket for this action
and in a summary section in the
preamble when this action is finalized.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the
health and safety effects of the planned
regulation on children in Federal health
and safety standards and explain why
the regulation is preferable to
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is not a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does
not believe the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in Chapters 3
and 4 of the Economic Impact
Assessment for the Proposed
Supplemental Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ Requirements for the 2015 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. The EPA determined that the
ozone-related benefits, Fine Particulate
Matter-related benefits, and CO2-related
benefits from this final rule will further
improve children’s health.
However, the EPA’s Policy on
Children’s Health applies to this action.
Information on how the Policy was
applied is available in the Economic
Impact Assessment for the Proposed
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Supplemental Federal ‘‘Good Neighbor
Plan’’ Requirements for the 2015 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
including in ozone nonattainment areas,
and thus mitigate some pre-existing
health risks across most populations
and communities evaluated.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The EPA has prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects for the proposed
regulatory control alternative as follows.
The Agency estimates a 0 percent
change in retail electricity prices on
average across the contiguous U.S. in
2025 and a 0 percent change in retail
electricity prices on average across the
contiguous U.S. in 2028 as a result of
this proposed rule. Additional details of
the estimated retail electricity price
changes are presented in section 3 of the
EIA at proposal, which is in the public
docket.
K. Determinations Under CAA Section
307(b)(1) and (d)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations and Executive
Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s
Commitment to Environmental Justice
for All
The EPA believes that the human
health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not
result in disproportionate and adverse
effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns. The
documentation for this decision is
contained in section VIII.
Environmental Justice Considerations,
Implications, and Outreach of this
Preamble. Briefly, proximity
demographic analyses found larger
percentages of Hispanics, people below
the poverty level, people with less
educational attainment, and people
linguistically isolated are living within
5 km and 10 km of an affected EGU,
compared to national averages. It also
finds larger percentages of Native
Americans and people below the
poverty level living within 5 km and 10
km of an affected non-EGU facility.
The EPA believes that this action is
not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on
communities with environmental justice
concerns. Importantly, the action
described in this rule is expected to
lower ozone and PM2.5 in some areas,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs
judicial review of final actions by the
EPA. This section provides, in part, that
petitions for review must be filed in the
D.C. Circuit: (1) when the Agency action
consists of ‘‘nationally applicable
regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator,’’ or (2)
when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on
a determination of nationwide scope or
effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that
such action is based on such a
determination.’’ For locally or regionally
applicable final actions, the CAA
reserves to the EPA complete discretion
to decide whether to invoke the
exception in (2).173
The EPA anticipates that this
proposed rulemaking, if finalized,
would be ‘‘nationally applicable’’
within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1) because it would extend the
applicability of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan promulgated on March
15, 2023 (88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023)),
which as promulgated would apply to
23 states across the nation, to five
additional states located in four EPA
regions and four Federal judicial
circuits, in conjunction with partial
disapproval of the SIP submissions from
these five states. The final rule would
directly implement the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan in these five additional
states based on application of the same,
nationally consistent 4-step interstate
transport framework for assessing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS that the EPA applied in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan
promulgated on March 15, 2023, and in
other nationally applicable rulemakings,
such as CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and
the Revised CSAPR Update. The final
rule would thus apply a uniform,
nationwide analytical method and
interpretation of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) across the covered
states, expanding the scope of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan to a total of
up to 28 states across the nation. The
173 In
deciding whether to invoke the exception
by making and publishing a finding that an action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or
effect, the Administrator takes into account a
number of policy considerations, including his
judgment balancing the benefit of obtaining the D.C.
Circuit’s authoritative centralized review versus
allowing development of the issue in other contexts
and the best use of Agency resources.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12725
final rule would also make technical
corrections to the nationally applicable
regulatory provisions promulgated in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, see
section X.C. of this document.
In the alternative, to the extent a court
finds this action, if finalized, to be
locally or regionally applicable, the
Administrator intends to exercise the
complete discretion afforded to him
under the CAA to make and publish a
finding that the final action is based on
several determinations of ‘‘nationwide
scope or effect’’ within the meaning of
CAA section 307(b)(1). This proposal, if
finalized, would be based on several
determinations of nationwide scope or
effect, each of which has the purpose of
ensuring consistency and equity across
all states, including: (1) the
determination that use of the same 2023
and 2026 analytical year air quality
modeling and monitoring analytics
(including the use of the violatingmonitor receptor identification
methodology) that were used to define
all other states’ good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is appropriate for purposes of defining
the obligations of the five additional
states in this action; (2) the
determination that use of a 1 percent of
NAAQS threshold is appropriate for all
states at Step 2 and that neither reliance
on the EPA’s August 2018 1 ppb Memo
standing alone nor reliance on EPA’s
guidance on ‘‘significant impact levels’’
(SIL) for the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting program
provides adequate justification for an
alternative threshold; (3) the
determination that the same level of
emissions control stringency to the same
industry and source types at Step 3 as
was determined for 23 other states in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan is
appropriate to apply to these five
additional states; and (4) the
determination that the relevant sources
in these five states should be subject to
the same nationally uniform emissions
control programs promulgated at Step 4
for 23 other states in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.174
These determinations would provide
important bases for the action, if
finalized, are needed to ensure
consistency and equity in the treatment
of all states in addressing the multistate
problem of interstate ozone pollution
174 A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also
appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple
judicial circuits. In the report on the 1977
Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the
CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator’s
determination that the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’
exception applies would be appropriate for any
action that has a scope or effect beyond a single
judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323,
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12726
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
under the good neighbor provision for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and are not
related to the particularities of the
emissions sources in any specific state.
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
related rulemakings such as this one are
designed as a ‘‘collective approach’’ to
effectively address the nationwide
problem of interstate ozone transport in
an equitable and consistent manner
across all states. See Kentucky Energy
and Environment Cabinet v. EPA, No.
23–3605 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023), Order
at 8. The determinations underlying this
proposed action are therefore of
nationwide scope and effect, among
other reasons, because they ensure that
the requirements of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan (until replaced by SIPs
meeting the statutory requirements) will
be implemented on a consistent basis
across all ‘‘upwind’’ states, and will
deliver the full amount of relief from
upwind emissions that the EPA has
found downwind jurisdictions are
due.175 For these reasons, the
Administrator intends, if this proposed
action is finalized, to exercise the
complete discretion afforded to him
under the CAA to make and publish a
finding that this action is based on
several determinations of nationwide
scope or effect for purposes of CAA
section 307(b)(1), including, but not
limited to, those identified above.
This action is subject to the
provisions of CAA section 307(d). CAA
section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that
section 307(d) applies to, among other
things, ‘‘the promulgation or revision of
an implementation plan by the
Administrator under [CAA section
110(c)].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). This
proposed action, among other things,
proposes Federal implementation plans
for five additional states to extend the
coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan promulgated at 88 FR 36654 (June
5, 2023). To the extent any portion of
this action is not expressly identified
under CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the
Administrator determines that the
provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply
to such action. See CAA section
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section
307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as
the Administrator may determine’’).
175 In the report on the 1977 Amendments that
revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress
noted that the Administrator’s determination that
the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ exception applies
would be appropriate for any action that has a
scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See
H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 97
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power
plants, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
Michael Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations are
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Amend § 52.38 by:
a. In paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(C) and
(a)(5)(i)(C), removing ‘‘following the
control’’ and adding in its place
‘‘following the year of such control’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), removing
‘‘2017 and each subsequent year’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘2017 through 2024
only, except as provided in paragraph
(b)(14)(iii) of this section’’;
■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E);
■ d. In paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(C),
(b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(8)(iii)(C), and
(b)(9)(iii)(C), removing ‘‘following the
control’’ and adding in its place
‘‘following the year of such control’’;
■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(10)
introductory text;
■ f. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), removing
‘‘2024, of’’ and adding in its place
‘‘2026, of’’;
■ g. Revising paragraphs (b)(10)(v)(A)
and (B);
■ h. In paragraph (b)(11)(iii)
introductory text and paragraph
(b)(12)(iii) introductory text, removing
‘‘2025 or’’ and adding in its place ‘‘2025
(or for a State listed in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this section, 2027) or’’;
■ i. In paragraph (b)(14)(i)(G), removing
‘‘§ 97.826(f)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 97.826(g)’’;
■ j. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii) introductory
text, removing ‘‘paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(B),
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), (b)(2)(iii)(D)(1), or’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)
or’’;
■ k. Revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(A);
■ l. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B),
removing ‘‘97.826(d) and (e), and’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘97.826(d) through
(f), and’’; and
■ m. In paragraph (b)(17)(i), removing
‘‘2024’’ and adding in its place ‘‘2026’’.
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
§ 52.38 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) The provisions of subpart GGGGG
of part 97 of this chapter apply to
sources in each of the following States
and Indian country located within the
borders of such States with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year: Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) State-determined allocations of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for 2026. A State listed in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this section
may adopt and include in a SIP
revision, and the Administrator will
approve, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowance allocation provisions
replacing the provisions in
§ 97.1011(a)(1) of this chapter with
regard to sources in the State and areas
of Indian country within the borders of
the State subject to the State’s SIP
authority for the control period in 2026,
a list of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units and the amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances
allocated to each unit on such list,
provided that the list of units and
allocations meets the following
requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(v) * * *
(A) By [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the State must
notify the Administrator electronically
in a format specified by the
Administrator of the State’s intent to
submit to the Administrator a complete
SIP revision meeting the requirements
of paragraphs (b)(10)(i) through (iv) of
this section by April 1, 2025; and
(B) The State must submit to the
Administrator a complete SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(10)(v)(A) of
this section by April 1, 2025.
*
*
*
*
*
(14) * * *
(iii) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(A) The provisions of §§ 97.526(c),
97.826(c), and 97.1026(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 1 allowances,
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances, and CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances between
certain Allowance Management System
accounts under common control);
*
*
*
*
*
§ 52.39
[Amended]
3. Amend § 52.39 in paragraphs
(e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iii), (h)(1)(iii), and
(i)(1)(iii) by removing ‘‘following the
control’’ and adding in its place
‘‘following the year of such control’’.
■ 4. Amend § 52.40 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a), removing
‘‘paragraph (b)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (c)(1)’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b):
■ i. In the introductory text, removing
the section symbol before ‘‘52.46’’;
■ ii. Revising the definitions ‘‘Existing
affected unit’’ and ‘‘New affected unit’’;
and
■ iii. Adding the definition ‘‘Ozone
season’’ in alphabetical order;
■ c. In paragraph (c)(1), removing
‘‘(defined as May 1 through September
30 of a calendar year)’’;
■ d. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as
paragraph (c)(2)(i) and adding paragraph
(c)(2)(ii);
■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
■ f. In paragraph (d)(2), removing ‘‘May
1, 2029’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the
start date of the fourth ozone season
identified for the applicable State in
§ 52.40(c)(2)’’;
■ g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and
(d)(4) through (8) and paragraph (d)(9)
introductory text;
■ h. In paragraph (d)(9)(ii), removing
‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place
‘‘CEDRI or an’’;
■ i. Revising paragraphs (d)(10) and (11)
and (e)(1);
■ j. In paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)(1),
removing ‘‘63.7(e)(2)(ii)(2), or’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘63.7(e)(2)(ii), or’’;
■ k. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) through
(6) and paragraph (e)(7) introductory
text;
■ l. In paragraph (e)(7)(ii), removing
‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place
‘‘CEDRI or an’’;
■ m. Revising paragraph (e)(8);
■ n. In paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing
‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in its place
‘‘CEDRI or an’’; and
■ o. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(D)
and (g)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 52.40 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from sources not subject to
the CSAPR ozone season trading program?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Existing affected unit means any
affected unit for which construction
commenced before August 4, 2023, for
a unit in a State listed in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a
State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section.
New affected unit means any affected
unit for which construction commenced
on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in
a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of
this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed
in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Ozone season means the period
between May 1 and September 30,
inclusive, for a given year.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(ii) The provisions of this section or
§ 52.41, § 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45,
or § 52.46 apply to affected units located
in each of the following States,
including Indian country located within
the borders of such States, beginning in
the 2027 ozone season and in each
subsequent ozone season: Arizona.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an
existing affected unit under § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46 that cannot comply with the
applicable requirements in those
sections by the start date of the first
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section, due to circumstances
entirely beyond the owner or operator’s
control, may request an initial
compliance extension to a date certain
no later than the start date of the second
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section. The extension request must
contain a demonstration of necessity
consistent with the requirements of
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(v) Identify the owner or operator’s
proposed compliance date. A request for
an initial compliance extension under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section must
specify a proposed compliance date no
later than the start date of the second
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section and state whether the owner
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12727
or operator anticipates a need to request
a second compliance extension. A
request for a second compliance
extension under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section must specify a proposed
compliance date no later than the start
date of the fourth ozone season
identified for the applicable State in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and
identify additional actions taken by the
owner or operator to ensure that the
affected unit(s) will be in compliance
with the applicable requirements in this
section by that proposed compliance
date;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Each request for a compliance
extension shall be submitted via the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA no later than 180
days prior to the applicable compliance
date. Until an extension has been
granted by the Administrator under this
section, the owner or operator of an
affected unit shall comply with all
applicable requirements of this section
and shall remain subject to the
compliance date under paragraph (c)(2)
of this section or the initial extended
compliance date under paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, as applicable. A denial
will be effective as of the date of denial.
(5) The owner or operator of an
affected unit who has requested a
compliance extension under paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section and is
required to have a title V permit shall
apply to have the relevant title V permit
revised to incorporate the conditions of
the extension of compliance. The
conditions of a compliance extension
granted under paragraph (d)(6) of this
section will be incorporated into the
affected unit’s title V permit according
to the provisions of an EPA-approved
state operating permit program or the
Federal title V regulations in 40 CFR
part 71, whichever apply.
(6) Based on the information provided
in any request made under paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section or other
information, the Administrator may
grant an extension of time to comply
with applicable requirements in § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46 consistent with the provisions of
paragraph (d)(1) or (2). The decision to
grant an extension will be provided by
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, will be made publicly
available, and will identify each affected
unit covered by the extension; specify
the termination date of the extension;
and specify any additional conditions
that the Administrator deems necessary
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
12728
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
to ensure timely installation of the
necessary controls (e.g., the date(s) by
which on-site construction, installation
of control equipment, and/or process
changes will be initiated).
(7) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
an affected unit who has requested a
compliance extension under paragraph
(d)(1) or (2) of this section whether the
submitted request is complete, that is,
whether the request contains sufficient
information to make a determination,
within 60 calendar days after receipt of
the original request and within 60
calendar days after receipt of any
supplementary information.
(8) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
a decision to grant or intention to deny
a request for a compliance extension
within 60 calendar days after providing
written notification pursuant to
paragraph (d)(7) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(9) Before denying any request for an
extension of compliance, the
Administrator will provide notification
in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the EPA
to the owner or operator of the
Administrator’s intention to issue the
denial, together with:
*
*
*
*
*
(10) The Administrator’s final
decision to deny any request for an
extension will be provided in writing or
via an electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, will be made
publicly available, and will set forth the
specific grounds on which the denial is
based. The final decision will be made
within 60 calendar days after
presentation of additional information
or argument (if the request is complete),
or within 60 calendar days after the
deadline for the submission of
additional information or argument
under paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this
section, if no such submission is made.
(11) The granting of an extension
under this section shall not abrogate the
Administrator’s authority under section
114 of the Act.
(e) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an
existing affected unit under § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46 that cannot comply with the
applicable requirements in those
sections due to technical impossibility
or extreme economic hardship may
submit to the Administrator, by August
5, 2024, for a unit in a State listed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or
[ONE YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State
listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section, a request for approval of a caseby-case emissions limit. The request
must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA and shall contain
information sufficient for the
Administrator to confirm that the
affected unit is unable to comply with
the applicable emissions limit, due to
technical impossibility or extreme
economic hardship, and to establish an
appropriate alternative case-by-case
emissions limit for the affected unit.
Until a case-by-case emissions limit has
been approved by the Administrator
under this section, the owner or
operator shall remain subject to all
applicable requirements in § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46. A denial will be effective as of
the date of denial.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The owner or operator of an
affected unit who has requested a caseby-case emissions limit under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section and is required to
have a title V permit shall apply to have
the relevant title V permit revised to
incorporate the case-by-case emissions
limit. Any case-by-case emissions limit
approved under paragraph (e)(4) of this
section will be incorporated into the
affected unit’s title V permit according
to the provisions of an EPA-approved
state operating permit program or the
Federal title V regulations in 40 CFR
part 71, whichever apply.
(4) Based on the information provided
in any request made under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section or other
information, the Administrator may
approve a case-by-case emissions limit
that will apply to an affected unit in lieu
of the applicable emissions limit in
§ 52.41, § 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45,
or § 52.46. The decision to approve a
case-by-case emissions limit will be
provided in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the
EPA, will be made publicly available,
and will identify each affected unit
covered by the case-by-case emissions
limit.
(5) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
an affected unit who has requested a
case-by-case emissions limit under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section whether
the submitted request is complete, that
is, whether the request contains
sufficient information to make a
determination, within 60 calendar days
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
after receipt of the original request and
within 60 calendar days after receipt of
any supplementary information.
(6) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
a decision to approve or intention to
deny the request for a case-by-case
emissions limit within 60 calendar days
after providing notification pursuant to
paragraph (e)(5) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(7) Before denying any request for a
case-by-case emissions limit, the
Administrator will provide notification
in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the EPA
to the owner or operator of the
Administrator’s intention to issue the
denial, together with:
*
*
*
*
*
(8) The Administrator’s final decision
to deny any request for a case-by-case
emissions limit will be provided by
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, will be made publicly
available, and will set forth the specific
grounds on which the denial is based.
The final decision will be made within
60 calendar days after presentation of
additional information or argument (if
the request is complete), or within 60
calendar days after the deadline for the
submission of additional information or
argument under paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of
this section, if no such submission is
made.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The preferred method to receive
CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments,
File Transfer Protocol, or other online
file sharing services. Electronic
submissions must be transmitted
directly to the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI
Office at the email address oaqpscbi@
epa.gov, should include clear CBI
markings as described in paragraph
(g)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, and should
be flagged to the attention of Lead of
2015 Ozone Transport FIP. If assistance
is needed with submitting large
electronic files that exceed the file size
limit for email attachments, and if you
do not have your own file sharing
service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov
to request a file transfer link.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Annual reports and excess
emissions reports must be submitted via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
to report data required by § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 52.41 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a):
■ i. In the definition for ‘‘Cap’’,
removing ‘‘sum each’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘sum of each’’;
■ ii. In the definition for ‘‘Facility’’,
removing ‘‘20 states identified in
§ 52.40(b)(2)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘set of states identified in § 52.40(c)’’;
and
■ iii. In the definition for ‘‘Rich burn’’,
removing ‘‘affected unit where’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘affected units
where’’;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1)
introductory text, paragraph (b)(1)(ii),
and paragraph (c) introductory text;
■ c. In paragraph (d) introductory text,
removing ‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘CEDRI or an’’;
■ d. Redesignating the second paragraph
(d)(1)(iv) as paragraph (d)(1)(v);
■ e. In paragraph (d)(4), removing ‘‘an
affected units’’ and adding in its place
‘‘an affected unit’’;
■ f. Removing paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and
redesignating paragraph (e)(3)(iv) as
paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
■ g. In paragraph (e)(5) introductory
text, removing ‘‘owner of operator’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘owner or operator’’;
■ h. Revising paragraph (e)(6) and
paragraph (f) introductory text;
■ i. In paragraph (f)(1), removing
‘‘paragraph (e)(2)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (e)(3)’’;
■ j. In paragraph (f)(2), removing
‘‘paragraph (e)(3)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (e)(4)’’; and
■ k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2),
paragraph (g)(3) introductory text, and
paragraph (g)(3)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 52.41 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from the Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas Industry?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, the
owner or operator of an emergency
stationary RICE must operate the RICE
according to the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section to be treated as an emergency
stationary RICE. In order for a stationary
RICE to be treated as an emergency RICE
under this section, any operation other
than emergency operation, maintenance
and testing, and operation in nonemergency situations for up to 50 hours
per year, as described in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii), is prohibited. If
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
you do not operate the RICE according
to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii), the RICE will not
be considered an emergency engine
under this section and must meet all
requirements for affected units in this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The owner or operator may
operate an emergency stationary RICE
for maintenance checks and readiness
testing for a maximum of 100 hours per
calendar year, provided that the tests are
recommended by a Federal, state, or
local government agency, the
manufacturer, the vendor, or the
insurance company associated with the
engine. Any operation for nonemergency situations as allowed by
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section
counts as part of the 100 hours per
calendar year allowed by this paragraph
(b)(1)(ii). The owner or operator may
petition the Administrator for approval
of additional hours to be used for
maintenance checks and readiness
testing, but a petition is not required if
the owner or operator maintains records
confirming that Federal, state, or local
standards require maintenance and
testing of emergency RICE beyond 100
hours per calendar year. Any petition
must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA. Any approval of
a petition for additional hours granted
by the Administrator under 40 CFR part
63, subpart ZZZZ, shall constitute
approval by the Administrator of the
same petition under this paragraph
(b)(1)(ii).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are
the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you must meet the following
emissions limitations on a 30-day
rolling average basis during each ozone
season identified for the applicable
State in § 52.40(c)(2):
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(6) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit that is only operated
during peak periods outside of the
ozone season and your hours of
operation during the ozone season are
50 or less, you are not subject to the
testing and monitoring requirements of
paragraphs (e)(4) and (5) of this section
as long as you record and report your
hours of operation during the ozone
season in accordance with paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this section.
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you
are the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you shall maintain records of the
following information for each day the
affected unit operates during the ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12729
season consistent with the requirements
of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after completing
each performance test required by this
section. The results must be submitted
following the procedures specified in
§ 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
occurred during the reporting period.
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the
applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions
reports must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
Submissions made via CEDRI must be
made in accordance with the
appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit an
annual report to the EPA by January
30th of each year. Annual reports must
be submitted following the procedures
in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI. The
report shall contain the following
information:
(i) The name and address of the owner
or operator;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 52.42 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a), removing the
definition ‘‘Cement plant’’;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b) and
paragraph (c) introductory text;
■ c. In equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1):
■ i. In the definition for ‘‘P’’, removing
‘‘Time’’ and adding in its place ‘‘time’’;
and
■ ii. In the definition for ‘‘n’’, removing
‘‘n = Number’’ and adding in its place
‘‘N = Number’’;
■ d. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, removing ‘‘2026 ozone season’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘start date of the first
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in § 52.40(c)(2)’’;
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12730
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
e. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), removing
‘‘paragraph (e)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (f)’’; and
■ f. Revising paragraph (e) introductory
text, paragraphs (f)(1) through (3), and
paragraph (g)(2) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
■
§ 52.42 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from the Cement and
Concrete Product Manufacturing Industry?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Applicability. You are subject to
the requirements of this section if you
own or operate a new or existing cement
kiln that is located within any of the
States listed in § 52.40(c)(2), including
Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s), and emits
or has the potential to emit 100 tons per
year or more of NOX on or after August
4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State
listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing
cement kiln with a potential to emit of
100 tons per year or more of NOX on the
date specified for the unit in the
preceding sentence will continue to be
subject to the requirements of this
section even if that unit later becomes
subject to a physical or operational
limitation that lowers its potential to
emit below 100 tons per year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are
the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you must meet the following
emissions limitations on a 30-day
rolling average basis during each ozone
season identified for the applicable
State in § 52.40(c)(2):
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Recordkeeping requirements. If
you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you shall maintain records
of the following information for each
day the affected unit operates during the
ozone season consistent with the
requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this section. The results
must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
occurred during the reporting period.
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the
applicable emissions limit established
under paragraph (c) of this section.
Excess emissions reports must be
submitted following the procedures
specified in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach
provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions
made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate
submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January
30th of each year. Annual reports must
be submitted following the procedures
in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI. The
report shall include all records required
by paragraph (e) of this section,
including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by
paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an
existing affected unit that emits or has
a potential to emit 100 tons per year or
more of NOX as of August 4, 2023, for
a unit in a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i),
or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the
Administrator that the unit is subject to
this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or
an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later
than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a
State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120
DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed
in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be
accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification
shall provide the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Amend § 52.43 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(1),
paragraph (d)(4) introductory text, and
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii);
■ b. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii) introductory
text, removing ‘‘via the CEDRI or
analogous’’ and adding in its place ‘‘in
writing or via an’’;
■ c. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B), removing
‘‘in writing, within’’ and adding in its
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
place ‘‘via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, within’’;
■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv);
■ e. In paragraph (d)(4)(v), removing
‘‘August 5, 2024, the’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘the submission deadline
specified for the unit in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section, the’’;
■ f. In paragraph (e)(3) introductory text,
removing ‘‘2026 ozone season’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘start date of the first
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in § 52.40(c)(2)’’;
■ g. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii), removing ‘‘a
site-specific indicator’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘site-specific indicator ranges’’;
■ h. In paragraph (e)(3)(iv), removing
‘‘paragraph (f)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (g)’’;
■ i. Revising paragraph (f) introductory
text;
■ j. In paragraph (f)(8), removing
‘‘paragraph (d)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (e)’’; and
■ k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through
(4) and paragraph (h)(2) introductory
text.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 52.43 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from the Iron and Steel
Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Industry?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Applicability. The requirements of
this section apply to each new or
existing reheat furnace at an iron and
steel mill or ferroalloy manufacturing
facility that is located within any of the
States listed in § 52.40(c)(2), including
Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s), does not
have low-NOX burners installed, and
directly emits or has the potential to
emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX
on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in
a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing reheat
furnace without low-NOX burners
installed and with a potential to emit of
100 tons per year or more of NOX on the
date specified for the unit in the
preceding sentence will continue to be
subject to the requirements of this
section even if that unit later installs
low-NOX burners or becomes subject to
a physical or operational limitation that
lowers its potential to emit below 100
tons per year of NOX.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of each
affected unit must submit a work plan
for each affected unit by August 5, 2024,
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [ONE YEAR AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for
a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(ii). The work plan must be
submitted via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA. Each work plan must
include a description of the affected
unit and rated production and energy
capacities, identification of the low-NOX
burner or alternative low NOX
technology selected, and the phased
construction timeframe by which you
will design, install, and consistently
operate the device. Each work plan shall
also include, where applicable,
performance test results obtained no
more than five years before August 4,
2023, for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State
listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii), to be used as
baseline emissions testing data
providing the basis for required
emissions reductions. If no such data
exist, then the owner or operator must
perform pre-installation testing as
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) The Administrator will act as
follows with respect to each submitted
work plan:
(i) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
an affected unit if the submitted work
plan is complete, that is, whether the
submission contains sufficient
information to make a determination,
within 60 calendar days after receipt of
the original work plan and within 60
calendar days after receipt of any
supplementary information.
(ii) The Administrator will provide
notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the owner or operator of
a decision to approve or intention to
disapprove the work plan within 60
calendar days after providing written
notification pursuant to paragraph
(d)(4)(i) of this section that the
submitted work plan is complete. Any
decision to approve a work plan will be
made publicly available.
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) The Administrator’s final decision
to disapprove a work plan will be
provided in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the
EPA, will be made publicly available,
and will set forth the specific grounds
on which the disapproval is based. The
final decision will be made within 60
calendar days after presentation of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
additional information or argument (if
the submitted work plan is complete), or
within 60 calendar days after the
deadline for the submission of
additional information or argument
under paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B) of this
section, if no such submission is made.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you
are the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you shall maintain records of the
following information for each day the
affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements
of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit a final
report via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, by no later than one month
before the start date of the first ozone
season identified for the applicable
State in § 52.40(c)(2), certifying that
installation of each selected control
device has been completed. You shall
include in the report the dates of final
construction and relevant performance
testing, where applicable, demonstrating
compliance with the selected emission
limits pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this section. The results
must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
occurred during the reporting period.
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the
applicable emissions limit established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section. Excess emissions reports must
be submitted following the procedures
specified in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach
provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions
made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate
submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(4) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12731
30th of each year. Annual reports must
be submitted following the procedures
in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI. The
report shall include all records required
by paragraph (f) of this section,
including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by
paragraph (e) of this section to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limits established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section.
(h) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an
existing affected unit that does not have
low-NOX burners installed and that
emits or has a potential to emit 100 tons
per year or more of NOX as of August
4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State
listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the
Administrator that the unit is subject to
this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or
an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later
than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a
State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120
DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed
in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be
accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification
shall provide the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 52.44 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a):
■ i. In the definition for ‘‘Affected
units’’, removing ‘‘Affected units
means’’ and adding ‘‘Affected unit
means’’; and
■ ii. Revising the definition ‘‘Wool
fiberglass’’;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b) and
paragraph (c) introductory text;
■ c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text
and paragraph (e)(1) introductory text,
removing ‘‘the CEDRI or’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘CEDRI or an’’;
■ d. In paragraph (g)(3) introductory
text, removing ‘‘2026 ozone season’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘start date of the first
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in § 52.40(c)(2)’’;
■ e. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), removing
‘‘a’’;
■ f. In paragraph (g)(3)(iv), removing
‘‘paragraph (h)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraph (i)’’;
■ g. Revising paragraph (h)(1)
introductory text;
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12732
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
h. Redesignating paragraphs
(h)(1)(vii)(D), (h)(1)(viii), and (h)(1)(ix)
as paragraphs (h)(1)(viii), (h)(1)(ix), and
(h)(1)(x), respectively;
■ i. In paragraph (h)(2), adding a second
sentence;
■ j. In paragraph (h)(3), adding a third
sentence; and
■ k. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) through
(3) and paragraph (j)(2) introductory
text.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 52.44 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from the Glass and Glass
Product Manufacturing Industry?
(a) * * *
Wool fiberglass means fibrous glass of
random texture, including acoustical
board and tile (mineral wool), fiberglass
insulation, glass wool, insulation (rock
wool, fiberglass, slag, and silica
minerals), and mineral wool roofing
mats.
(b) Applicability. You are subject to
the requirements under this section if
you own or operate a new or existing
glass manufacturing furnace that is
located within any of the States listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country
located within the borders of any such
State(s), and directly emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tons per year or
more of NOX on or after August 4, 2023,
for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State
listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing
glass manufacturing furnace with a
potential to emit of 100 tons per year or
more of NOX on the date specified for
the unit in the preceding sentence will
continue to be subject to the
requirements of this section even if that
unit later becomes subject to a physical
or operational limitation that lowers its
potential to emit below 100 tons per
year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are
the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you must meet the emissions
limitations in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section on a 30-day rolling
average basis during each ozone season
identified for the applicable State in
§ 52.40(c)(2), provided that such
emissions limitations shall not apply to
the unit during startup, shutdown, and/
or idling in any ozone season for which
the unit complies with the startup
requirements in paragraph (d) of this
section, the shutdown requirements in
paragraph (e) of this section, and/or the
idling requirements in paragraph (f) of
this section, respectively.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
(h) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain
records of the following information for
each day the affected unit operates
during the ozone season consistent with
the requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * * The records shall be
maintained consistent with the
requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(3) * * * The records shall be
maintained consistent with the
requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(i) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this section. The results
must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
occurred during the reporting period.
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the
applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions
reports must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
Submissions made via CEDRI must be
made in accordance with the
appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(3) If you own or operate an affected
unit, you shall submit an annual report
to the EPA by January 30th of each year.
Annual reports must be submitted
following the procedures in § 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
Submissions made via CEDRI must be
made in accordance with the
appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall
include all records required by
paragraph (h) of this section, including
records of CEMS data or operating
parameters required by paragraph (g) of
this section to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the applicable
emissions limits under paragraph (c) of
this section.
(j) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an
existing affected unit that emits or has
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a potential to emit 100 tons per year or
more of NOX as of August 4, 2023, for
a unit in a State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i),
or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
for a unit in a State listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the
Administrator that the unit is subject to
this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or
an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later
than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a
State listed in § 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120
DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed
in § 52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be
accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification
shall provide the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Amend § 52.45 by:
■ a. Revising the section heading;
■ b. In paragraph (a), in the definition
for ‘‘Maximum heat input capacity’’,
removing the second ‘‘means’’ before
‘‘the ability’’;
■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
■ d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory
text, removing ‘‘paragraph (f)(2)’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘paragraphs (e)(2)
and (f)(3)’’;
■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) and
paragraph (c) introductory text;
■ f. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text, removing ‘‘May 1, 2026’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘the start date of the
first ozone season identified for the
applicable State in § 52.40(c)(2)’’;
■ g. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing
‘‘emission rate’’ and adding in its place
‘‘emissions rate’’;
■ h. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory
text, removing ‘‘mmBTU/hr’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘mmBtu/hr’’;
■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
■ j. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), removing
‘‘coal and span value’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘coal and a span value’’;
■ k. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) and
paragraph (d)(3) introductory text;
■ l. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing
‘‘affected units operates’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘affected unit operates’’;
■ m. In paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B),
removing ‘‘emission rates’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘emissions rates’’;
■ n. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(iv);
■ o. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
■ p. Revising paragraph (e)(1)
introductory text, paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text, and paragraphs
(e)(2)(v) and (f)(1) through (3); and
■ q. Removing paragraph (f)(4).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
§ 52.45 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from the Basic Chemical
Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing, Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Mills, Metal Ore Mining, and
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing Industries?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) The requirements of this section
apply to each new or existing boiler
with a design capacity of 100 mmBtu/
hr or greater that received 90% or more
of its heat input from coal, residual oil,
distillate oil, natural gas, or
combinations of these fuels in the
previous ozone season; is located at
sources that are within the Basic
Chemical Manufacturing industry, the
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing industry, the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Mills industry,
the Metal Ore Mining industry, and the
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing industry; and is located
within any of the States listed in
§ 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country
located within the borders of any such
State(s). The requirements of this
section do not apply to an emissions
unit that meets the requirements for a
low-use exemption as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit that exceeds the 10%
per year hour of operation over three
years criterion or the 20% hours of
operation per year criterion, you can no
longer comply via the low-use
exemption provisions and must meet
the applicable emissions limits and
other applicable provisions as soon as
possible but not later than one year from
the date eligibility as a low-use boiler
was negated by exceedance of the lowuse boiler criteria.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are
the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you must meet the following
emissions limitations on a 30-day
rolling average basis during each ozone
season identified for the applicable
State in § 52.40(c)(2):
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The 1-hour average NOX
emissions rates measured by the CEMS
shall be expressed in terms of lbs/
mmBtu heat input and shall be used to
calculate the average emissions rates
under paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
(vii) You may delay installing a CEMS
for NOX until after the initial
performance test has been conducted. If
you demonstrate during the
performance test that emissions of NOX
are less than 70 percent of the
applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section, you are not required
to install a CEMS for measuring NOX. If
you demonstrate your affected unit
emits less than 70 percent of the
applicable emissions limit and choose
to not install a CEMS, you must submit
a request via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided
by the EPA to the Administrator that
documents the results of the initial
performance test and includes an
alternative monitoring procedure that
will be used to track compliance with
the applicable NOX emissions limit(s) in
paragraph (c) of this section. The
Administrator may consider the request
and, following public notice and
comment, may approve the alternative
monitoring procedure with or without
revision, or disapprove the request. If
the Administrator approves the request
for the alternative monitoring
procedure, you must request that the
relevant permitting agency incorporate
the monitoring procedure into the
facility’s title V permit. Upon receipt of
a disapproved request, you will have
one year to install a CEMS.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit with a heat input
capacity less than 250 mmBtu/hr, you
must monitor NOX emissions via the
requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this
section or you must monitor NOX
emissions by conducting an annual test
in conjunction with the implementation
of a monitoring plan meeting the
following requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) You shall submit the monitoring
plan to the EPA via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, and request that
the relevant permitting agency
incorporate the monitoring plan into the
facility’s title V permit.
(e) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit which is not a low-use
boiler, you shall maintain records of the
following information for each day the
affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements
of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit complying as a low-use
boiler, you must maintain the following
records for each operating day of the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12733
calendar year consistent with the
requirements of § 52.40(f):
*
*
*
*
*
(v) The annual hours of operation for
each of the prior 3 years, and the 3-year
average hours of operation.
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this section. The results
must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
occurred during the reporting period.
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate, as determined under
paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, that
exceeds the applicable emissions limit
in paragraph (c) of this section. Excess
emissions reports must be submitted
following the procedures specified in
§ 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January
30th of each year. Annual reports must
be submitted following the procedures
in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI. The
report shall include all records required
by paragraph (e) of this section,
including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by
paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance
with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
■ 10. Amend § 52.46 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a):
■ i. Removing the definitions ‘‘mass
burn refractory waste combustor’’,
‘‘mass burn rotary waterwall municipal
waste combustor’’, and ‘‘mass burn
waterwall municipal waste combustor’’;
■ ii. Adding the definition ‘‘Municipal
solid waste or MSW’’ in alphabetical
order; and
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12734
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
iii. In the definition for ‘‘Municipal
waste combustor, MWC, or municipal
waste combustor unit’’, paragraph (i),
removing ‘‘Means any’’ and adding in
its place ‘‘Any’’;
■ b. In paragraph (b), removing ‘‘and’’;
■ c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text;
■ d. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2),
removing ‘‘at 7 percent oxygen’’;
■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph
(d)(1);
■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
■ g. In paragraph (d)(5), removing
‘‘owner and operator’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘owner or operator’’;
■ h. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory
text, removing ‘‘NOX are’’ and adding in
its palace ‘‘NOX emissions are’’;
■ i. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(vi)
introductory text and paragraphs
(e)(1)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vi)(B), and (e)(2)(vii);
■ j. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), removing
‘‘paragraph (e)(2)(iv)’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘paragraph (e)(2)(vi)’’;
■ k. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(3);
■ l. Revising paragraph (f) introductory
text and paragraph (f)(3);
■ m. In paragraph (f)(4), removing
‘‘occurrence that’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘occurrence where’’;
■ n. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2);
and
■ o. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 52.46 What are the requirements of the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)
relating to ozone season emissions of
nitrogen oxides from Municipal Waste
Combustors?
(a) * * *
Municipal solid waste or MSW means
‘‘municipal solid waste or municipaltype solid waste or MSW’’ as defined in
40 CFR 60.51b.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are
the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you must meet the following
emissions limitations at all times on a
24-hour block average basis and a 30day rolling average basis during each
ozone season identified for the
applicable State in § 52.40(c)(2), using
NOX measurements corrected to 7
percent oxygen except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(B) of
this section:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Duration of startup and shutdown
periods is limited to 3 hours per
occurrence.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
(vi) If you select carbon dioxide for
use in diluent corrections, you shall
follow the requirements of 40 CFR
60.58b(b)(6) to establish the relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide
levels:
(A) This relationship shall be
established during the initial
performance test and may be
reestablished during performance
compliance tests; and
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) Each NOX 1-hour arithmetic
average shall be corrected to 7 percent
oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1hour arithmetic average of the oxygen
(or carbon dioxide) CEMS data, except
that NOX data for an hour identified as
falling within a period of startup or
shutdown in accordance with
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this
section can reflect NOX as measured at
stack oxygen content without such
correction.
(vii) The 1-hour arithmetic averages
shall be expressed in parts per million
by volume (dry basis) and shall be used
to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic
average concentrations. The 1-hour
arithmetic averages shall be calculated
using the data points required under 40
CFR 60.13(e)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you
are the owner or operator of an affected
unit, you shall maintain records of the
following information, as applicable, for
each day the affected unit operates
during the ozone season consistent with
the requirements of § 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Identification of the calendar dates
and times (hours) for which valid
hourly NOX emissions data have not
been obtained, including reasons for not
obtaining the data and a description of
corrective actions taken.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you must submit the
results of the performance test or
performance evaluation of the CEMS to
the EPA within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this section. The results
must be submitted following the
procedures specified in § 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic
reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you are required to
submit excess emissions reports to the
EPA for any excess emissions that
occurred during the reporting period.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 24-hour block average NOX
emissions rate or calculated 30-day
rolling average NOX emissions rate, as
determined under paragraph (e)(2) of
this section, that exceeds the respective
emissions limit in paragraph (c) of this
section. Excess emissions reports must
be submitted following the procedures
specified in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach
provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions
made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate
submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January
30th of each year. Annual reports must
be submitted following the procedures
in § 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided
by the EPA to report data required by
this section. Submissions made via
CEDRI must be made in accordance
with the appropriate submission
instructions provided in CEDRI. The
report shall include all information
required by paragraph (f) of this section,
including records of CEMS data
required by paragraph (e) of this section
to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limits under
paragraph (c) of this section.
Subpart D—Arizona
11. Add § 52.154 to subpart D to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.154 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
(a)(1) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of Arizona and Indian country within
the borders of the State and for which
requirements are set forth under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply
with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units in the State
and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State’s
SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Arizona’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is
the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under
§ 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those
sources and units, except to the extent
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the Administrator’s approval is partial
or conditional. The obligation to comply
with such requirements with regard to
sources and units located in areas of
Indian country within the borders of the
State not subject to the State’s SIP
authority will not be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Arizona’s
SIP.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of Arizona’s SIP
revision described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances under subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State and areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State subject to the
State’s SIP authority for a control period
in any year, the provisions of subpart
GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
authorizing the Administrator to
complete the allocation and recordation
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances to such units for each such
control period shall continue to apply,
unless provided otherwise by such
approval of the State’s SIP revision.
(b) The owner and operator of each
source located in the State of Arizona
and Indian country within the borders
of the State and for which requirements
are set forth in § 52.40 and § 52.41,
§ 52.42, § 52.43, § 52.44, § 52.45, or
§ 52.46 must comply with such
requirements with regard to emissions
occurring in 2027 and each subsequent
year.
Subpart Q—Iowa
12. Amend § 52.840 by:
a. In paragraph (b)(2):
i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each
subsequent year.’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and
■ ii. Removing the second and third
sentences;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 52.840 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of Iowa and Indian country within the
borders of the State and for which
requirements are set forth under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units in the State
and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State’s
SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Iowa’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is
the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under
§ 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the
extent the Administrator’s approval is
partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units located in
areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State not subject to the
State’s SIP authority will not be
eliminated by the promulgation of an
approval by the Administrator of a
revision to Iowa’s SIP.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of Iowa’s SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances under subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State and areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State subject to the
State’s SIP authority for a control period
in any year, the provisions of subpart
GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
authorizing the Administrator to
complete the allocation and recordation
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances to such units for each such
control period shall continue to apply,
unless provided otherwise by such
approval of the State’s SIP revision.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, after
2024 the provisions of § 97.826(c) of this
chapter (concerning the transfer of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts
under common control) and the
provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter
(concerning the conversion of amounts
of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 2 allowances allocated for control
periods before 2025 to different amounts
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances) shall continue to apply.
Subpart R—Kansas
13. Amend § 52.882 by:
a. In paragraph (b)(1):
■ i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each
subsequent year.’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12735
ii. Removing the second and third
sentences;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of Kansas and Indian country within the
borders of the State and for which
requirements are set forth under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply
with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units in the State
and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State’s
SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to Kansas’
State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is
the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under
§ 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the
extent the Administrator’s approval is
partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units located in
areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State not subject to the
State’s SIP authority will not be
eliminated by the promulgation of an
approval by the Administrator of a
revision to Kansas’ SIP.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of Kansas’ SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances under subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State and areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State subject to the
State’s SIP authority for a control period
in any year, the provisions of subpart
GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
authorizing the Administrator to
complete the allocation and recordation
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances to such units for each such
control period shall continue to apply,
unless provided otherwise by such
approval of the State’s SIP revision.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12736
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, after
2024 the provisions of § 97.826(c) of this
chapter (concerning the transfer of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts
under common control) and the
provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter
(concerning the conversion of amounts
of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 2 allowances allocated for control
periods before 2025 to different amounts
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances) shall continue to apply.
Subpart GG—New Mexico
14. Add § 52.1641 to subpart GG to
read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 52.1641 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
(a) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of New Mexico and Indian country
within the borders of the State and for
which requirements are set forth under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply
with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units in the State
and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State’s
SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to New
Mexico’s State Implementation Plan
(SIP) as correcting the SIP’s deficiency
that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under
§ 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those
sources and units, except to the extent
the Administrator’s approval is partial
or conditional. The obligation to comply
with such requirements with regard to
sources and units located in areas of
Indian country within the borders of the
State not subject to the State’s SIP
authority will not be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to New
Mexico SIP.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of New Mexico’s
SIP revision described in paragraph (a)
of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances under subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State and areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State subject to the
State’s SIP authority for a control period
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
in any year, the provisions of subpart
GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
authorizing the Administrator to
complete the allocation and recordation
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances to such units for each such
control period shall continue to apply,
unless provided otherwise by such
approval of the State’s SIP revision.
Subpart RR—Tennessee
15. Amend § 52.2240 by:
a. In paragraph (e)(2):
i. Removing ‘‘2017 and each
subsequent year.’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘2017 through 2024.’’; and
■ ii. Removing the second sentence;
■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(3); and
■ c. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 52.2240 Interstate pollutant transport
provisions; What are the FIP requirements
for decreases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides?
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each
source and each unit located in the State
of Tennessee and for which
requirements are set forth under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply
with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements will be
eliminated by the promulgation of an
approval by the Administrator of a
revision to Tennessee’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting
the SIP’s deficiency that is the basis for
the CSAPR Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) under § 52.38(b)(1) and
(b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the
Administrator’s approval is partial or
conditional.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if, at the
time of the approval of Tennessee’s SIP
revision described in paragraph (e)(3) of
this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances under subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter to units in the
State for a control period in any year,
the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part
97 of this chapter authorizing the
Administrator to complete the
allocation and recordation of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances
to such units for each such control
period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of
the State’s SIP revision.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, after
2024 the provisions of § 97.826(c) of this
chapter (concerning the transfer of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts
under common control) and the
provisions of § 97.826(f) of this chapter
(concerning the conversion of amounts
of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 2 allowances allocated for control
periods before 2025 to different amounts
of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances) shall continue to apply.
PART 97—FEDERAL NOX BUDGET
TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND
SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, CSAPR
NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS,
AND TEXAS SO2 TRADING PROGRAM
16. The authority citation for part 97
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410,
7426, 7491, 7601, and 7651, et seq.
Subpart BBBBB—CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 1 Trading Program
§ 97.502
[Amended]
17. Amend § 97.502 in the definition
for ‘‘CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
3 allowance’’ by removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d)
or (e), or’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or’’.
■ 18. Amend § 97.526 by adding
paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(4) to read
as follows:
■
§ 97.526
Banking and conversion.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) After the Administrator has
carried out the procedures set forth in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and
§ 97.826(f)(1), upon any determination
that would otherwise result in the initial
recordation of a given number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances
in the compliance account for a source
in a State listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of
this chapter (and Indian country within
the borders of such a State), the
Administrator will not record such
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1
allowances but instead will allocate and
record in such account an amount of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for the control period in
2023 computed as the quotient, rounded
up to the nearest allowance, of such
given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 1 allowances divided by
the conversion factor determined under
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section and
further divided by the conversion factor
determined under § 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(4) After the Administrator has carried
out the procedures set forth in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section and
§ 97.826(f)(1), the owner or operator of
a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1
source in a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and
Indian country within the borders of
such a State) may satisfy a requirement
to hold a given number of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 1 allowances for
the control period in 2015 or 2016 by
holding instead, in a general account
established for this sole purpose, an
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances for the control
period in 2025 (or any later control
period for which the allowance transfer
deadline defined in § 97.1002 has
passed) computed as the quotient,
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of
such given number of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 1 allowances
divided by the conversion factor
determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section and further divided by the
conversion factor determined under
§ 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
Subpart EEEEE—CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 2 Trading Program
§ 97.802
[Amended]
19. Amend § 97.802 by:
a. In the definition for ‘‘Allocate or
allocation’’, removing ‘‘§§ 97.526(d),
97.826(d), and 97.1026(e), and’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§§ 97.526 and
97.1026, and’’;
■ b. In the definition for ‘‘Common
designated representative’s assurance
level’’, paragraph (2), removing
‘‘§ 97.526(d), § 97.826(d), or
§ 97.1026(e).’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 97.526, § 97.826, or § 97.1026.’’; and
■ c. In the definition for ‘‘CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance’’,
removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d) or (e), or’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or
(f), or’’.
■
■
§ 97.810
[Amended]
20. Amend § 97.810 in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iii), (a)(7)(i) through
(iii), (a)(19)(i) and (ii), and (b)(6), (7),
and (19) by removing ‘‘and thereafter’’
and adding in its place ‘‘through 2024’’.
■
§ 97.811
[Amended]
21. Amend § 97.811(d) heading by
adding ‘‘Original’’ before ‘‘Group 2
allowances’’.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
■
§ 97.824
[Amended]
22. Amend § 97.824(c)(2)(ii) by
removing ‘‘§ 97.526(d), § 97.826(d), or
§ 97.1026(e), in’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§ 97.526, § 97.826, or § 97.1026, in’’.
■ 23. Amend § 97.826 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B);
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as
paragraph (g) and adding a new
paragraph (f);
■ c. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)
introductory text, removing ‘‘this
paragraph (f)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘this paragraph (g)’’;
■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph
(g)(1)(i), removing ‘‘paragraph (f)(1)(ii)’’
and adding in its place ‘‘paragraph
(g)(1)(ii)’’; and
■ e. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 97.826
Banking and conversion.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The product of the sum of the
trading budgets for the control period in
2024 under § 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for all
States listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(B) and
(C) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21
and further multiplied by a fraction
whose numerator is the number of days
from August 4, 2023, through September
30, 2023, inclusive, and whose
denominator is 153.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subpart, part 52 of this
chapter, or any SIP revision approved
under § 52.38(b)(8) or (9) of this chapter:
(1) As soon as practicable on or after
[45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], the Administrator will
temporarily suspend acceptance of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowance transfers submitted under
§ 97.822 and, before resuming
acceptance of such transfers, will take
the following actions with regard to
every compliance account for a CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 source in a
State listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State):
(i) The Administrator will deduct all
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances allocated for the
control periods in 2017 through 2024
from each such account.
(ii) The Administrator will determine
a conversion factor equal to the greater
of 1.0000 or the quotient, expressed to
four decimal places, of—
(A) The sum of all CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Original Group 2 allowances
deducted from all such accounts under
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section;
divided by
(B) The product of the sum of the
preset trading budgets for the control
period in 2025 under § 97.1010(a)(2)(i)
for all States listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E)
of this chapter multiplied by 0.21.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12737
(iii) The Administrator will allocate
and record in each such account an
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances for the control
period in 2025 computed as the
quotient, rounded up to the nearest
allowance, of the number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2
allowances deducted from such account
under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section
divided by the conversion factor
determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of
this section.
(2) After the Administrator has carried
out the procedures set forth in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, upon
any determination that would otherwise
result in the initial recordation of a
given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Original Group 2 allowances in
the compliance account for a source in
a State listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of
this chapter (and Indian country within
the borders of such a State), the
Administrator will not record such
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances but instead will
allocate and record in such account an
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances for the control
period in 2025 computed as the
quotient, rounded up to the nearest
allowance, of such given number of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances divided by the
conversion factor determined under
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
(g) * * *
(3) After the Administrator has carried
out the procedures set forth in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the
owner or operator of a CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 source in a State
listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this
chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State) may satisfy a
requirement to hold a given number of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances for a control period
in 2017 through 2024 by holding
instead, in a general account established
for this sole purpose, an amount of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for the control period in
2025 (or any later control period for
which the allowance transfer deadline
defined in § 97.1002 has passed)
computed as the quotient, rounded up
to the nearest allowance, of such given
number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Original Group 2 allowances divided by
the conversion factor determined under
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
Subpart GGGGG—CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 Trading Program
§ 97.1002
■
[Amended]
24. Amend § 97.1002 by:
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
12738
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
a. In the definition for ‘‘Allocate or
allocation’’, removing ‘‘§§ 97.526(d) and
97.826(d) and (e), and’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘§§ 97.526 and 97.826, and’’;
■ b. In the definition for ‘‘Common
designated representative’s assurance
level’’, paragraph (2), removing
‘‘§ 97.526(d) or § 97.826(d) or (e).’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.526 or
§ 97.826.’’; and
■ c. In the definition for ‘‘CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance’’,
removing ‘‘§ 97.826(d) or (e), or’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.826(d), (e), or
(f), or’’.
■ 25. Amend § 97.1006 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B);
■ b. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) introductory
text, removing ‘‘paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A),
(B), or (C)’’ and adding in its place
‘‘paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through (D)’’;
■ c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), removing
the semicolon and adding in its place a
period.
■ d. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B), removing
‘‘; or’’ and adding in its place a period.
■ e. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D); and
■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
§ 97.1006
Standard requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the
source, of any excess over 50 tons of the
sum for such a unit, for all calendar
days of the control period, of any NOX
emissions on any calendar day of the
control period exceeding the NOX
emissions that would have occurred on
that calendar day if the unit had
combusted the same daily heat input
and emitted at any backstop daily NOX
emissions rate applicable to the unit for
that control period.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State
(and Indian country within the borders
of such State) listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter.
(ii) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 unit shall be subject to the
requirements under paragraphs
(c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section for the
control period starting on the later of
May 1, 2024, or the deadline applicable
to the unit under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of
this section and for each control period
thereafter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 26. Amend § 97.1010 by:
■ a. In table 1 to paragraph (a)(1)(i) and
table 2 to paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the
entries ‘‘Arizona’’, ‘‘Iowa’’, ‘‘Kansas’’,
‘‘New Mexico’’, and ‘‘Tennessee’’ in
alphabetical order;
■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1)
and (a)(4)(iii)(A);
■ c. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B), adding
‘‘applicable’’ before ‘‘document
referenced’’;
■ d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and
(iv); and
■ e. In table 6 to paragraph (e)(3)(i),
adding the entries ‘‘Arizona’’, ‘‘Iowa’’,
‘‘Kansas’’, ‘‘New Mexico’’, and
‘‘Tennessee’’ in alphabetical order.
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
§ 97.1010 State NOX Ozone Season Group
3 trading budgets, set-asides, and
variability limits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)(i)—STATE NOX OZONE SEASON GROUP 3 TRADING BUDGETS BY CONTROL PERIOD,
2021–2025
[Tons]
Portion of 2023
control period before
August 4, 2023,
before prorating
Portion of 2023
control period on and
after August 4, 2023,
before prorating
State
2021
2022
*
*
Arizona ......................................................
*
..................
..................
*
*
*
.................................... ....................................
..................
*
*
Iowa ..........................................................
Kansas ......................................................
*
..................
..................
..................
..................
*
*
*
.................................... ....................................
.................................... ....................................
..................
..................
*
*
New Mexico ..............................................
*
..................
..................
*
*
*
.................................... ....................................
..................
*
*
Tennessee ................................................
*
..................
..................
*
*
*
.................................... ....................................
..................
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
2024
2025
*
8,195
*
9,752
4,763
*
2,211
*
*
3,983
*
(i) * * *
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)(i)—PRESET TRADING BUDGETS BY CONTROL PERIOD, 2026–2029
[Tons]
State
2026
*
*
*
*
Arizona .............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2027
*
5,814
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
2028
*
4,913
16FEP3
2029
*
3,949
3,949
12739
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)(i)—PRESET TRADING BUDGETS BY CONTROL PERIOD, 2026–2029—Continued
[Tons]
State
2026
2027
*
*
*
*
Iowa ..................................................................................................................
Kansas ..............................................................................................................
*
9,713
4,763
9,713
4,763
*
*
*
*
New Mexico ......................................................................................................
*
2,008
2,008
*
*
*
*
Tennessee ........................................................................................................
*
3,983
2,666
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) The sum for all units in the State
meeting the criterion under paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, without
regard to whether such units also meet
the criteria under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B)
and (C) of this section, of the total heat
input amounts reported in accordance
with part 75 of this chapter for the
historical control periods in the years
two, three, and four years before the
year of the control period for which the
dynamic trading budget is being
calculated, provided that for the
historical control periods in 2022 and
2023, the total reported heat input
amounts for Nevada and Utah as
otherwise determined under this
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be
increased by 13,489,332 mmBtu for
Nevada and by 1,888,174 mmBtu for
*
*
2029
*
9,713
4,763
*
9,077
4,763
*
2,008
*
*
Utah, and provided that for the
historical control periods in 2022, 2023,
and 2024, the total reported heat input
amounts for Arizona and New Mexico
as otherwise determined under this
paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be
increased by 13,304,261 mmBtu for
Arizona and by 62,445 mmBtu for New
Mexico;
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) * * *
(A) For a unit listed in the document
entitled ‘‘Unit-Specific Ozone Season
NOX Emissions Rates for Dynamic
Budget Calculations’’ posted at
www.regulations.gov in docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0668 (applicable to
units located within the borders of
States listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this chapter) or the
document entitled ‘‘Unit-Specific Ozone
Season NOX Emissions Rates for
Dynamic Budget Calculations for Five
Additional States’’ posted at
2028
2,008
*
2,130
*
1,198
*
www.regulations.gov in docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2023–0402 (applicable to
units located within the borders of
States listed in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of
this chapter), the NOX emissions rate
used in the calculation for the control
period shall be the NOX emissions rate
shown for the unit and control period in
the applicable document.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) 0.11, for Arizona for the control
periods in 2025 and 2026; or
(iv) 0.05, for each State for each
control period in 2023 and thereafter
except as otherwise specified in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
TABLE 6 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(3)(i)—STATE-LEVEL TOTAL HEAT INPUT USED IN CALCULATIONS OF PRESET TRADING
BUDGETS BY CONTROL PERIOD, 2023–2029
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
[mmBtu]
State
2023
2024
*
*
Arizona ..........................................
................
*
................
*
279,048,607
*
266,122,691
266,122,691
*
*
Iowa ...............................................
Kansas ..........................................
................
................
*
................
................
*
142,934,126
104,571,293
*
142,934,126
104,571,293
142,934,126
104,571,293
*
*
New Mexico ..................................
................
*
................
*
82,092,237
*
79,168,874
79,168,874
*
*
Tennessee ....................................
................
*
................
*
152,351,271
*
152,351,271
115,344,086
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
■ 27. Amend § 97.1011 by revising
paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C) to read
as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
2025
Jkt 262001
2026
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00075
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
2028
*
*
263,590,069
142,934,126
104,571,293
*
141,310,860
104,571,293
79,168,874
*
79,168,874
100,187,179
*
76,883,950
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
2029
263,590,069
*
*
§ 97.1011 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowance allocations to existing
units.
*
2027
*
12740
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(B) For the control periods in 2026
and thereafter, a maximum controlled
baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of
this section shall apply to any unit
combusting any coal or solid coalderived fuel during the historical
control period for which the unit’s heat
input was most recently reported,
serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, and
equipped with selective catalytic
reduction controls, except a circulating
fluidized bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described
in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B) of this section,
for the following States and control
periods, a maximum controlled baseline
under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit
located within the borders of the State,
combusting any coal or solid coalderived fuel during the historical
control period for which the unit’s heat
input was most recently reported, and
serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or
Wisconsin, the control periods in 2027
and thereafter.
(2) For State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or
Tennessee, the control periods in 2028
and thereafter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 28. Amend § 97.1012 by revising
paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii)(B) and
(C) to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
§ 97.1012 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowance allocations to new units.
(a) Allocations from new unit setasides. For each control period in 2021
and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 units in each
State and areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State (except, for the
control periods in 2021 and 2022, areas
of Indian country within the borders of
the State not subject to the State’s SIP
authority), the Administrator will
allocate CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances to the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 units as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(i) The first control period for which
the State within whose borders the unit
is located is listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A), (B), (C), or (E) of
this chapter;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
(B) For the control periods in 2024
and thereafter, a maximum controlled
baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of
this section shall apply to any unit
combusting any coal or solid coalderived fuel during the control period,
serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, and
equipped with selective catalytic
reduction controls on or before
September 30 of the preceding control
period, except a circulating fluidized
bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described
in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B) of this section,
for the following States and control
periods, a maximum controlled baseline
under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit
located within the borders of the State,
combusting any coal or solid coalderived fuel during the control period,
and serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or
Wisconsin, the control periods in 2027
and thereafter.
(2) For a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or
Tennessee, the control periods in 2028
and thereafter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 29. Amend § 97.1021 by:
■ a. In paragraph (a), removing ‘‘period
in 2021.’’ and adding in its place
‘‘periods in 2021 and 2022.’’;
■ b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e);
■ c. In paragraph (f), removing ‘‘July 1,
2024’’ and adding in its place ‘‘July 1,
2026’’; and
■ d. Revising paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 97.1021 Recordation of CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
allocations and auction results.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) By September 5, 2023, the
Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
source’s compliance account the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances
allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with § 97.1011(a)(1) for the
control periods in 2023 and 2024.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources
located within a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by
[30 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], the Administrator will
record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with
§ 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in
2025.
(e) By July 1, 2025, the Administrator
will record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with
§ 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in
2026, unless the State in which the
source is located is listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter and
notifies the Administrator in writing by
[15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], of the State’s intent to
submit to the Administrator a complete
SIP revision by April 1, 2025, meeting
the requirements of § 52.38(b)(10)(i)
through (iv) of this chapter.
(1) If, by April 1, 2025, the State does
not submit to the Administrator such
complete SIP revision, the
Administrator will record by July 1,
2025, in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with
§ 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in
2026.
(2) If the State submits to the
Administrator by April 1, 2025, and the
Administrator approves by October 1,
2025, such complete SIP revision, the
Administrator will record by October 1,
2025, in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source as provided in such
approved, complete SIP revision for the
control period in 2026.
(3) If the State submits to the
Administrator by April 1, 2025, and the
Administrator does not approve by
October 1, 2025, such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record
by October 1, 2025, in each CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 source’s
compliance account the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowances
allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with § 97.1011(a)(1) for the
control period in 2026.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources
located within a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by
[30 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], and by July 1 of each
year thereafter, the Administrator will
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Proposed Rules
record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 source’s compliance
account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with
§ 97.1011(a)(2) for the control period in
the year after the year of the applicable
recordation deadline under this
paragraph (h).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. Amend § 97.1024 by:
■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and
(b)(3)(i) and (ii); and
■ b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing
‘‘§ 97.526(d) or § 97.826(d) or (e), in’’
and adding in its place ‘‘§ 97.526 or
§ 97.826, in’’.
The revisions read as follows:
§ 97.1024 Compliance with CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 primary emissions
limitation; backstop daily NOX emissions
rate.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the
source to which the backstop daily NOX
emissions rate applies for the control
period under paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, of any excess over 50 tons for
such a unit of the sum (converted to
tons at a conversion factor of 2,000 lb/
ton and rounded to the nearest ton), for
all calendar days in the control period,
of any amount by which the unit’s NOX
emissions for a given calendar day in
pounds exceed the product in pounds of
the unit’s total heat input in mmBtu for
that calendar day multiplied by 0.14 lb/
mmBtu; or
*
*
*
*
*
(3) * * *
(i) For the following States and
control periods, the backstop daily NOX
emissions rate shall apply to any CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located
within the borders of the State,
combusting any coal or solid coalderived fuel during the control period,
serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, and
equipped with selective catalytic
reduction controls on or before
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:43 Feb 15, 2024
Jkt 262001
September 30 of the preceding control
period, except a circulating fluidized
bed boiler:
(A) For a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
chapter, the control periods in 2024 and
thereafter.
(B) For a State listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, the
control periods in 2026 and thereafter.
(ii) In addition to the units described
in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, for
each control period in 2030 and
thereafter, the backstop daily NOX
emissions rate shall apply to any other
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit
located with the borders of a State
except Alabama, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, or
Wisconsin, combusting any coal or solid
coal-derived fuel during the control
period, and serving a generator with
nameplate capacity of 100 MW or more,
except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 97.1025
31. Amend § 97.1025(c)(1)
introductory text by adding ‘‘in 2024 or
thereafter’’ after ‘‘control period’’.
■ 32. Amend § 97.1026 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii)
introductory text; and
■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 97.1026 Banking and conversion; bank
recalibration.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowance bank ceiling target
for the control period in the year of the
deadline under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, calculated as the product,
rounded to the nearest allowance, of the
sum for all States identified for the
control period in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of
this section of the State NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 trading budgets under
§ 97.1010(a) for such States for such
control period multiplied by—
*
*
*
*
*
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
(iii) The States whose trading budgets
will be included in the calculation of
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowance bank ceiling target for each
control period are as follows:
(A) For the control periods in 2024
and 2025, the States listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this
chapter.
(B) For the control periods in 2026
and thereafter, the States listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and (E)
of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 33. Amend § 97.1030 by:
■ a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing
‘‘or’’ after the semicolon;
■ b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), removing
the period and adding in its place ‘‘; or’’;
and
■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 97.1030 General monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
*
[Amended]
■
PO 00000
12741
Sfmt 9990
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State
(and Indian country within the borders
of such State) listed in
§ 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 34. Amend § 97.1034 by:
■ a. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), removing
‘‘or’’ after the semicolon;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(C), adding
‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; and
■ c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 97.1034
Recordkeeping and reporting.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) The calendar quarter covering
May 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, for
a unit in a State (and Indian country
within the borders of such State) listed
in § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter;
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–01064 Filed 2–15–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16FEP3.SGM
16FEP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12666-12741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01064]
[[Page 12665]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 33
February 16, 2024
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12666]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668; EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402; FRL-
11159-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW09
Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental proposed rule and withdrawal of
proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
disapprove and partially approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee
regarding interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action also proposes a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee to address these States' obligations to eliminate
significant contribution to nonattainment, or interference with
maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The FIP would
require fossil fuel-fired power plants in the five states to
participate in an allowance-based ozone season nitrogen oxides
emissions trading program beginning in 2025. The Agency is also
proposing to establish nitrogen oxides emissions limitations applicable
to certain other industrial stationary sources in Arizona with a
compliance year no earlier than 2027. Finally, this action also
includes proposed technical corrections to the regulatory text
previously promulgated to establish comparable FIP requirements for
emissions sources in other states.
DATES:
Comments: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2024.
Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on March
4, 2024. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information on the public hearing.
Information collection request: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best
assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or before March 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: You may send comments, identified as Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0402, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402 in
the subject line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Hearing: The virtual hearing will be held at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. The public hearing will convene at 9:00
a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or 1 hour after the last
registered speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A
lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Refer to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Uher, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C539-04),
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5534; email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public participation: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system).
There are three dockets supporting this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668. All comments
regarding information in any of these dockets are to be made in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402.
The index to the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0402, is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
2016v1 2016 Version 1 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v2 2016 Version 2 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v3 2016 Version 3 Emissions Modeling Platform
ARP Acid Rain Program
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed Units
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
DAHS Data Acquisition and Handling System
EAV Equivalent Annualized Values
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EHD Environmental Health Department
EIA Economic Impact Assessment
EPA or the Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
g/hp-hr Grams per horsepower per hour
Group 2 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances
Group 2 trading program CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program
Group 3 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances
Group 3 Trading Program CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
LNB Low-NOX Burners
MJO Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MW Megawatts
NAA Nonattainment Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
[[Page 12667]]
NMED New Mexico Environment Department
Non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSCR Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction
OMB United States Office of Management and Budget
PBI Proprietary Business Information
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV Present Value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
SC-CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIL Significant Impact Level
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TAS Treatment as State
TDEC Tennessee Department of Environmental Control
TSD Technical Support Document
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Violating-Monitor Receptors Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only
Receptors
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking?
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
D. Severability
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport
Regulatory Process
C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling
D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS
1. Selection of Analytic Years
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
1. Arizona
Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
2. New Mexico
a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
c. New Mexico Letter
3. Tennessee
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
B. EPA Evaluation
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps
1 and 2
b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for Arizona
c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
d. Conclusion
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding
Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding
Step 2
c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for New Mexico
d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
f. Conclusion
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding
Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding
Step 2
c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for Tennessee
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tenessee Regarding
Step 3
e. Conclusion
C. Proposed SIP Action
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for This Action
A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP
Submissions From Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP
Authority for Iowa and Kansas
B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or
Appropriate Finding
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX Emissions Reduction
Potential To Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per
Ton) and Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX Reductions,
and Air Quality
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
4. Conclusions
VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected
Units
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025
Control Period
B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
C. Submitting a SIP
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading
Program
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under
EGU Trading Program
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source
Control Requirements
D. Title V Permitting
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and
Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
B. Outreach
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
Requirements to EGUs in Additional States
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
Requirements to Non-EGUs in Additional States
C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously
Finalized Regulatory Text
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating
Units
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule would resolve the interstate transport
obligations of five states under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
referred to as the
[[Page 12668]]
``good neighbor provision'' or the ``interstate transport provision''
of the Act, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 1, 2015, the EPA
revised the primary and secondary 8-hour standards for ozone to 70
parts per billion (ppb).\1\ States were required to provide ozone
infrastructure SIP submissions to fulfill interstate transport
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to make a finding that interstate transport of
ozone precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is withdrawing its
previous proposed actions on SIP submissions from Arizona and
Tennessee,\2\ proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
good neighbor SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee,
and to error-correct its prior good neighbor SIP approval actions for
Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals.\3\ To fulfill the EPA's
responsibility to ensure that states meet their interstate transport
obligations as expeditiously as practicable to meet attainment
deadlines for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA also proposes FIP
requirements for these five states to prohibit the emissions that
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. For states
covered in this action, the EPA proposes to define new ozone season
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions performance obligations for
Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sources and to fulfill those obligations
by implementing an allowance-based ozone season trading program
beginning in 2025. The EPA is also proposing to establish emissions
limitations beginning in 2027 for certain other industrial stationary
sources (referred to generally as ``non-Electric Generating Units''
(non-EGUs) in Arizona. Taken together, these strategies will fully
resolve the covered states' good neighbor obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022). (The EPA's proposed
approval of Arizona's SIP); and 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022) (The
EPA's proposed disapproval of Tennessee's SIP).
\3\ See 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); and 87 FR 19390
(April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to implement the necessary emissions reductions as
follows. The proposed FIP requirements establish ozone season
NOX emissions budgets for EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee and require EGUs in these states to participate
in the revised version of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule.\4\ For states currently covered
by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (i.e.,
Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee), the EPA proposes to amend existing FIPs to
transition EGU sources in these states from the Group 2 trading program
to the revised Group 3 trading program, beginning with the 2025 ozone
season. The EPA proposes to issue new FIPs for Arizona and New Mexico,
which are not currently covered by any CSAPR NOX ozone
season trading program. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA also
proposes to extend the FIP requirements to apply in Indian country
located within the geographical boundaries of the states included in
this proposal, including Indian reservation lands and other areas of
Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframes for implementation of these emissions-reduction
strategies are, in the EPA's judgment, as expeditious as practicable
and aligned to the extent possible with the attainment schedule for
downwind areas in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed
in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to find that the 2025
ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to implement emissions
reductions associated with near-term emissions control strategies at
EGUs, and the 2027 ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to
implement emissions reductions associated with new post-combustion
control installations at EGUs as well as from installation of new
pollution controls at non-EGUs.
As identified in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to
find that, because Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee are not
linked to receptors in the 2026 ozone season, the near-term EGU
emissions-control strategy is sufficient to eliminate these states'
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Because
Arizona remains linked to receptors through the 2026 ozone season, the
EPA proposes to find that additional NOX emissions from EGUs
and NOX emissions from non-EGU sources in Arizona are
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states
and that additional cost-effective controls for NOX
emissions reductions are available from EGUs and in certain industries
that would result in meaningful air quality improvements at downwind
receptors. Thus, in addition to more stringent EGU emissions budgets
for Arizona beginning in 2027, the EPA proposes to require emissions
limitations beginning in 2027 for non-EGUs located within Arizona. The
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established NOX emissions
limitations during the ozone season for the following unit types for
sources in non-EGU industries: reciprocating internal combustion
engines (RICE) in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product Manufacturing; boilers and reheat furnaces in
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass
and Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers in Basic Chemical
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills and combustors and
incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 88 FR 36654, at 36817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
providing an opportunity for public comment on its proposed conclusion
that SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee do not
contain the necessary provisions to prohibit emissions from sources
within their states from interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in downwind areas. The EPA also proposes to find it necessary to
issue an error correction under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6)
of its previous approval actions for Kansas and Iowa and proposes to
partially disapprove these states' interstate transport submissions. In
addition, the EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from sources in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states, and therefore the
EPA is proposing FIPs to address these states' transport obligations
through expanding the coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule
\6\ finalized on March 15, 2023. The EPA is proposing to implement the
ozone season NOX trading program requirements for EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the FIPs for Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee and the emissions limits for
non-EGU (industrial) sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the
FIP for Arizona. These control strategies, if finalized,
[[Page 12669]]
will prohibit the emissions from these five states identified as
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to extend the coverage of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan to these five additional states based on the same data
and analyses contained in that rule. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA identified and finalized FIPs for 23 states with emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA used the same set of
nationwide air quality modeling, air quality monitoring data, and
technical analysis of emissions control opportunities in defining good
neighbor obligations for all states covered in that action. Consistent
with the application of the EPA's 4-step interstate transport
framework, which has been used in prior good neighbor rules like the
CSAPR and upheld by the federal courts, the EPA applied emissions
control requirements on a uniform basis across those states based on
that record.
The EPA maintains that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
consistent with the EPA's prior decisions to extend the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's contribution analysis and emissions control
requirements to include the five states covered in this action. The EPA
has not identified any factors unique to these five states that would
warrant applying a different approach. These five states were not
addressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan because the EPA was not
positioned to take final rulemaking action to disapprove SIPs, error
correct prior approvals to disapprovals, or promulgate FIPs for these
states at that time. To maintain consistency across all states such
that the allocation of responsibility for eliminating states'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS
in downwind states is done on an equitable basis, the EPA proposes to
apply to five additional states the nationwide findings and
determinations contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as to the
original 23 states which will, if finalized, eliminate these additional
states' significant contribution. Thus, in this action the EPA proposes
to apply to these five states its air quality modeling and contribution
information for the analytical years 2023 and 2026 at Steps 1 and 2,
its analysis of emissions control opportunities for EGUs and non-EGUs
and determinations of stringency, including overcontrol analysis, at
Step 3, and its implementation programs at Step 4. The technical
materials and record-based findings that underlie these determinations
are all contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan record. The scope
of this rulemaking is limited to the application of that record to
these five additional states.
Thus, in this document, the EPA is taking comment only on (a) the
EPA's proposed conclusions that SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee do not contain the necessary provisions to
prohibit emissions from sources within their respective states from
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone standard, (b) the EPA's
proposed conclusion that the Agency must error correct its final rules
approving SIPs from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals, (c) the
EPA's proposed conclusions that the five states identified above have
emissions that interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
other states, and (d) the EPA's proposed decision to apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan emissions-control programs as the FIP requirements
to address these emissions in these five states.
Additionally, the EPA has updated its analysis of air quality
improvements at Step 3 and demonstration that there is no overcontrol
resulting from the inclusion of these five additional states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes that the 2025 and 2027
ozone seasons represent appropriate compliance start-dates for these
states, affording sufficient lead time for sources to plan for
compliance from the standpoint of when this rulemaking will likely be
finalized, which the EPA currently anticipates will be in the summer of
2024. These proposed findings are within the scope of this rulemaking
and open for public comment.
The EPA is not reopening any determinations made in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan as to the 23 states covered in that action. Nor is
the EPA taking comment on any aspect of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
except to the extent of its application to these five states. In
general, the record for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule contains
information at each step of the 4-step interstate transport framework
that can be applied to these five states. Thus, the identification of
receptors to which these five states are linked and the level of
contribution from these states to those receptors is based on the same
analytical findings using the air quality modeling and monitoring data
contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In addition, the analysis
underlying the EPA's determinations at Step 3 as to EGUs and non-EGUs
and the appropriate degree of emissions-control stringency needed to
eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance
likewise was conducted on a region-wide basis, and in the EPA's view is
reasonably applied to the emissions sources in these five states. The
emissions-control requirements were established on a uniform basis for
each particular industry covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and
do not vary by State (except to the extent that states not linked in
2026 are not subject to the requirements that onset in 2026 and
California's EGUs are not subject to the EGU trading program). Based on
these findings, these programs should be extended to these five states.
This is reasonable and indeed necessary to ensure consistency and
equitable treatment across all states in addressing the nationwide
problem of interstate ozone pollution for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See EME
Homer City v. EPA, 472 U.S. 572, 519, 524 (2014). This is also
consistent with the EPA's practice throughout the history of
implementing the good neighbor provision for other NAAQS. For instance,
using the final analysis in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA soon
after conducted rulemaking to include five additional states in the
CSAPR trading programs. See 76 FR 80760 (December 27, 2011). Thus, for
the same reasons, the EPA proposes to find it reasonable and
appropriate to extend the uniform set of findings and determinations
made in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five additional states
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not aware of any information with
respect to these states that would justify a deviation from the same
set of findings and requirements that already have been made for the 23
states covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan with respect to these
same obligations.
Finally, this action also includes proposed technical corrections
to the existing regulatory text finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
B. Costs and Benefits
Table I.B-1 summarizes the key results of the cost-benefit analysis
that was prepared for this proposed rule. Table I.B-1 presents
estimates of the present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values
(EAV), calculated using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent as
recommended by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-
4, of the health and climate benefits, compliance costs, and net
benefits of the proposed rule, in 2016 dollars, discounted to 2023. The
estimated monetized net benefits are the
[[Page 12670]]
estimated monetized benefits minus the estimated monetized costs of the
proposed rule. These results present an incomplete overview of the
effects of the rule because important categories of benefits were not
monetized (e.g., ecosystem effects, visibility impairment, and water
quality improvements) and are therefore not reflected in the cost-
benefit tables. The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects
into account would show the proposed rule to be more net beneficial
than this table reflects.
Table I.B-1--Estimated Monetized Health and Climate Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposed
Rule, 2025 Through 2044
[Millions 2016$, discounted to 2023] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value:
Health Benefits \b\............ $330 and $1,900...................... $210 and $1,200.
Climate Benefits \c\........... $9.3................................. $9.3.
Compliance Costs \d\........... $67.................................. $45.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............... $270 and $1,800...................... $180 and $1,100.
Equivalent Annualized Value:
Health Benefits................ $22 and $130......................... $20 and $110.
Climate Benefits............... $0.6................................. $0.6.
Compliance Costs............... $4.5................................. $4.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............... $18 and $120......................... $17 and $110.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and
final Revised CSAPR Update Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), as well as the proposal and final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan RIA; to be consistent with those recent actions we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar
year for presenting costs and benefits.
\b\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over a 20-year period from 2025 to 2044.
Monetized benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5
concentrations. The health benefits are associated with two alternative estimates of the number of premature
deaths and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. Several categories of benefits remain
unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
\c\ Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) (model
average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate).
For presentational purposes in this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3-
percent discount rate are used in the columns displaying results of other costs and benefits that are
discounted at either a 3-percent or 7-percent discount rate.
\d\ The costs presented in this table are consistent with the costs presented in section 3 of the Economic
Impact Assessment (EIA). To estimate these annualized costs for EGUs, the EPA uses a conventional and widely
accepted approach that applies a capital recovery factor multiplier to capital investments and adds that to
the annual incremental operating expenses. Costs were calculated using a 3.75 percent real discount rate
consistent with the rate used in the Integrated Planning Model's (IPM) objective function for cost-
minimization. For further information on the discount rate use, please see section 3 of the EIA.
As shown in Table I.B-1, the PV of the monetized health benefits,
associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5 of this
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to
be about $330 and $1,900 million, with an EAV of about $22 and $130
million. At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the monetized health
benefits is estimated to be $210 and $1,200 million, with an EAV of
about $20 and $110 million. The PV of the monetized climate benefits,
associated with reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, of this
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to
be about $9.3 million, with an EAV of about $0.6 million. The PV of the
monetized compliance costs, discounted at a 3-percent rate, is
estimated to be about $67 million, with an EAV of about $4.5 million.
At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the compliance costs is
estimated to be about $45 million, with an EAV of about $4.2 million.
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This supplemental proposed rule affects EGU and non-EGU sources,
and regulates the groups identified in Table II.A-1, along with their
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
Table II.A-1--Regulated Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry group NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation............. 221112
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.................. 4862
Metal Ore Mining........................................ 2122
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing............... 3273
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing....... 3311
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing................... 3272
Basic Chemical Manufacturing............................ 3251
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing............... 3241
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills....................... 3221
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators................. 562213
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed rule. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is
now aware could potentially be
[[Page 12671]]
regulated by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed in
the table could also be regulated. To determine whether a particular
entity is regulated by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 97.1004 (EGUs) or 40 CFR
52.40(c), 52.41(b), 52.42(b), 52.43(b), 52.44(b), 52.45(b), and
52.46(b) (non-EGUs). If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this proposed rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
The EPA evaluated whether interstate ozone transport emissions from
upwind states are significantly contributing to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any downwind
State using the same 4-step interstate transport framework that was
developed in previous ozone transport rulemakings. In its previous
action, the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA found that sources in
23 states had obligations to eliminate their significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in downwind
areas.\7\ In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to apply that
same analysis to find that emissions reductions are required from EGU
sources in the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee and from non-EGU sources in Arizona. The EPA proposes to
ensure that these NOX emissions reductions are achieved by
issuing FIP requirements for these five states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions
from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee lack adequate provisions to
ensure sources and other emissions activity in their states are not
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
The EPA is also proposing to error correct its previous actions on SIP
submissions from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals for the same
reason.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4,
2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this same action, the EPA proposes FIP requirements for these
five states. The EPA is proposing to incorporate Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee into the existing CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, beginning in the 2025 ozone season. EGUs in states not currently
covered by any CSAPR trading program for seasonal NOX
emissions--Arizona and New Mexico--will be added to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program under this rule.
EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee will transition from the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. The EPA is
establishing a control stringency level reflecting optimization of
existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-art
combustion controls on certain covered EGU sources in the emissions
budgets beginning in the 2025 ozone season. In addition, for Arizona,
the EPA is establishing a control stringency level reflecting
installation of new Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Selective
Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) controls on certain covered EGU sources
in its emissions budgets beginning with the 2027 ozone season.
Consistent with the emissions limitations established for non-EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, this supplemental action
proposes to establish emissions limitations for new and existing non-
EGU sources in Arizona beginning with the 2027 ozone season. The
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established control requirements for the
following unit types in non-EGU industries: RICE in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing;
boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing, Metal Ore
Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and combustors
and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators. See Table
II.A-1 in this document for a list of NAICS codes for the relevant
industries.
In accordance with the requirements of the good neighbor provision,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this proposed rule reduces the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors from emissions in upwind states
to downwind areas to protect human health and the environment from
negative health impacts associated with acute and chronic exposure to
ozone. Ozone exposure is also associated with negative effects on
ecosystems. Additional information on the air quality issues addressed
by this proposed rule is included in section IX. of this document.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by the
CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Specifically, sections 110 and
301 of the CAA provide the primary statutory underpinnings for this
action. The most relevant portions of CAA section 110 are subsections
110(a)(1), 110(a)(2) (including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)), 110(k)(2),
110(k)(3), 110(k)(6), and 110(c)(1).
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides that states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
that these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS.\9\ The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
\10\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489,
509-10 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has historically referred to SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the applicable requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' or ``iSIP''
submissions.'' CAA section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for iSIP submissions, and CAA section 110(a)(2) provides
more details concerning the required content of these submissions.\11\
It includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' must
address, including the requirements of the good neighbor provision.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
\12\ The EPA's general approach to infrastructure SIP
submissions is explained in greater detail in individual documents
acting or proposing to act on State infrastructure SIP submissions
and in guidance. See, e.g., Memorandum from Stephen D. Page on
Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (September 13,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a
FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (1) finds that
a State has failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) finds a SIP
submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C); or
(3) disapproves a SIP submission. This obligation applies unless the
State corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that
[[Page 12672]]
the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor''
provision, provides the primary basis for this proposed action.\14\ It
requires that each State's SIP include provisions sufficient to
``prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--(I) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].'' \15\ The EPA often
refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as
``good neighbor obligations'' and submissions addressing these
requirements as ``good neighbor SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, the EPA must designate areas as
being in ``attainment'' or ``nonattainment'' of the NAAQS, or
``unclassifiable.'' CAA section 107(d).\16\ For ozone, nonattainment is
further split into five classifications based on the severity of the
violation--Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. Higher
classifications provide states with progressively more time to attain
while imposing progressively more stringent control requirements. See
CAA sections 181, 182.\17\ In general, states with nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher must submit plans to the EPA to bring
these areas into attainment according to the statutory schedule in CAA
section 182.\18\ If an area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment
date associated with its classification, it is ``bumped up'' to the
next classification, per the requirements in CAA section 181(b).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d).
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7511, 7511a.
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7511a.
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 7511(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the Administrator the general
authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out
functions under the Act.\20\ Pursuant to this section, the EPA has
authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements and
undertake other rulemaking action as necessary to implement CAA
requirements. CAA section 301 affords the Agency any additional
authority that may be needed to make certain other changes to its
regulations under 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 to effectuate the purposes of
the Act. Such changes are discussed in section X. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority,
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining
that those actions were in error.\21\ As discussed further in section
V.A. of this document, the EPA proposes to make error corrections under
CAA section 110(k)(6) with respect to its prior approvals of the 2015
ozone transport SIP submissions from the States of Iowa and Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribes are not required to submit State implementation plans.
However, as explained in the EPA's regulations outlining Tribal CAA
authority, the EPA is authorized to promulgate FIPs for Indian country
as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality if a Tribe does not
submit, and obtain the EPA's approval of, an implementation plan. See
40 CFR 49.11(a); see also CAA section 301(d)(4).\22\ In this action,
the EPA proposes an ``appropriate or necessary'' finding under CAA
section 301(d) and proposes Tribal FIP(s) as necessary to implement the
relevant requirements. This is further discussed in section V.B. of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Severability
The EPA regards this proposal as a complete remedy for the covered
states, which will as expeditiously as practicable implement good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the
requirements of the Act. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-
12 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313- 20 (D.C. Cir.
2019); Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York
v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214, 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York v. EPA, 781 Fed.
App'x 4, 7-8 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (all holding that the EPA must address
good neighbor obligations as expeditiously as practicable and by no
later than the next applicable attainment date). Yet the EPA proposes
that should a court find any discrete aspect of this action, if
finalized, to be invalid, the Agency believes that, like the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the remaining aspects of this proposed rule can and
should continue to be implemented to the extent possible, consistent
with law. See 88 FR 36693. In particular, this proposal would
disapprove SIP submissions and promulgate a FIP for each covered state
(and, pursuant to CAA section 301(d), for each area of tribal
jurisdiction within the geographic boundaries of those states). Should
any jurisdiction-specific aspect of the rule, once finalized be found
invalid, the EPA views this rule, if finalized as proposed, as
severable along those state and/or tribal jurisdictional lines, such
that the proposed rule could continue to be implemented as to any
remaining jurisdictions. This action proposes discrete emissions
control requirements for the power sector and for each of nine other
industries. Should any industry-specific aspect of the proposed rule be
found invalid once final, the EPA views this rule as proposed as
severable as between the different industries and different types of
emissions control requirements. This is not intended to be an
exhaustive list of the ways in which the proposed rule may be
severable. In the event any part of the rule, if finalized, is found
invalid, our intention is that the remaining portions should continue
to be implemented consistent with any judicial ruling.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In a declaration dated October 28, 2023, and filed with the
U.S. Supreme Court in State of Ohio et al. v. EPA, No. 23A349, the
Agency, through Joseph Goffman, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator performing delegated duties of Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Air and Radiation, explained in greater detail why
it makes sense as both a technical and legal matter that the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan can continue to be implemented in each covered
state despite preliminary stays of the Plan in other states. This
same reasoning applies with full force with respect to the
additional states that are proposed for inclusion in these programs
in this action. The declaration is included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's conclusion that this proposed rule, upon finalization, is
severable also reflects the important public health and environmental
benefits of this rulemaking in eliminating significant contribution and
to ensure to the greatest extent possible the ability of both upwind
states and downwind states and other relevant stakeholders to be able
to rely on this rule at final in their planning. Cf. Wisconsin, 938
F.3d at 336-37 (``As a general rule, we do not vacate regulations when
doing so would risk significant harm to the public health or the
environment.''); North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (noting the need to preserve public health benefits); EME Homer
City v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting the need to
avoid disruption to emissions trading market that had developed).
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be
[[Page 12673]]
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be CBI,
Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).
Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for
additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy;
information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and general
guidance on making effective comments.
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register to
speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form
available at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs or
contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 and/or [email protected] to
register to speak at the virtual hearing. The last day to pre-register
to speak at the hearing will be 3 working days before the hearing. On
[last working day before the hearing], the EPA will post a general
agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in
approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at
the hearing registration desk. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences
on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. Each commenter will
have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters
to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically
by emailing it to Ms. Pamela Long. The EPA also recommends submitting
the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking
docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are
posted online at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above,
please monitor our website or contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641
and/or [email protected] to determine if there are any updates. The EPA
does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing updates.
The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations
unless the Agency receives special requests in advance. Commenters
should notify Ms. Pamela Long when they pre-register to speak that they
will need specific equipment. If you require the services of an
interpreter or special accommodations such as audio description, please
pre-register for the hearing with Ms. Pamela Long and describe your
needs by [DATE 1 WEEK BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE]. The EPA may not
be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) for the 8-hour
standard.\24\ Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit,
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP
submissions meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2).\25\ One of these applicable requirements is found in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' or
``interstate transport'' provision, which generally requires that SIPs
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities
from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-called ``prongs''
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another State (Prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another State (Prong 2). The EPA and states must give
independent significance to Prong 1 and Prong 2 when evaluating
downwind air quality problems under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in ppb. For example, 0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70
ppb.
\25\ SIP submissions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
CAA section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
\26\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2023, the EPA finalized disapproval of 19 SIP
submissions and partially approved and partially disapproved two SIP
submissions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA's evaluation for those actions applied uniform,
nationwide analytical methods, policy judgments, and interpretation
with respect to the same CAA obligations, i.e., implementation of good
neighbor requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for states across the country. To maintain consistency
across all states in light of the final analytical conclusions reached
in that action and the separate Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA
indicated it would take subsequent action on remaining SIP submissions
addressing interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\27\ The EPA also indicated it would address previous final
actions on SIP submissions for states where the EPA's final analysis
suggested the State may be significantly contributing to nonattainment
or interfering with maintenance. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
finalized on March 15, 2023, the EPA indicated it would address these
and any outstanding FIP obligations in a future action for these
states, which included the five states included here and Wyoming.\28\
The EPA finalized its approval of the SIP submission from Wyoming on
December 13, 2023.\29\ This action proposes to
[[Page 12674]]
address the five additional remaining SIP submissions and FIP
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 88 FR 36656.
\28\ 88 FR 36654 at 36656.
\29\ See Air Plan Approval; Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 88 FR 54998 (August 14, 2023). The EPA signed the final
approval on December 13, 2023. 88 FR 87720 (December 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport Regulatory
Process
For decades, when evaluating SIPs and formulating FIPs, EPA has
consistently utilized the 4-step interstate transport framework (or 4-
step framework), which was developed to give meaning to the critical
statutory terms in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to provide a
reasonable organization to the analysis of the complex air quality
challenge of interstate ozone transport. The EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to prior NAAQS using the 4-step framework in several
regulatory actions, including the CSAPR, which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\30\ the CSAPR Update \31\ and
the Revised CSAPR Update, both of which addressed the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\32\ For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA uses this framework in
evaluating SIP submissions (while considering any alternative
approaches states may propose) and applied this framework in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\31\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\32\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Revised CSAPR Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), responded to
the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin and the vacatur of a
separate rule, the ``CSAPR Close-Out,'' 83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018), in New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\33\ See 88 FR at 9338; 88 FR at 36671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaped through the years by input from State air agencies \34\ and
other stakeholders on the EPA's prior interstate transport rulemakings
and SIP submission actions,\35\ as well as a number of court decisions,
the EPA has developed and used the 4-step interstate transport
framework to evaluate State's obligations to eliminate interstate
transport emissions under the interstate transport provision for the
ozone NAAQS: (1) identify monitoring sites that are projected to have
problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors); (2) identify states that impact those
air quality problems in other (i.e., downwind) states sufficiently such
that the states are considered to ``contribute'' (i.e., are considered
``linked'') to those receptors and whose emissions therefore warrant
further review and analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to eliminate each
linked upwind State's significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations identified
in Step 1; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions. EPA does not require states to use
the 4-step framework in good neighbor SIP submissions, but it is a
useful organizational tool that has been upheld by the Supreme Court as
``permissible, workable, and equitable.'' EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 524 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 63 FR 57356, 57361 (October 27, 1998).
\35\ In addition to CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the ``NOX
SIP Call,'' 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the ``Clean Air
Interstate Rule'' (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general steps of this framework allow for some methodological
variation, and this can be seen in the evolution of the EPA's analytic
process across its prior rulemakings. This also means states have some
flexibility in developing analytic methods within this framework (and
may also attempt to justify an alternative framework altogether). The
four steps of the framework provide a reasonable organization to the
analysis of the complex air quality challenge of interstate ozone
transport. As discussed further throughout this document, the EPA has
organized its evaluation of good neighbor obligations around this
analytical framework (including the specific methodologies within each
step as evolved over the course of the CSAPR rulemakings since 2011).
Where states presented alternative approaches either to the EPA's
methodological approaches within the framework, or organized their
analysis in some manner that differed from it entirely, the EPA has
evaluated those analyses on their merits to determine compliance with
the good neighbor obligation or, in some cases, identified why even if
those approaches were acceptable, the State still does not meet the
good neighbor requirement and therefore does not have an approvable SIP
submission as a whole.
C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling
The EPA has performed nationwide air quality modeling to project
ozone design values that are used in combination with measured data to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors at Step 1. To quantify
the contribution of emissions from individual upwind states on 2023 and
2026 ozone design values for the identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors at Step 2, the EPA has performed nationwide,
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023 and 2026. The
source apportionment modeling provides contributions to ozone at
receptors from precursor emissions of anthropogenic NOX and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in individual upwind states. In this
action, the EPA is proposing to apply the air quality modeling and
contribution results that were derived using the 2016v3 modeling and
monitoring data that informed the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2
determinations in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan--inclusive of the
approach for identifying certain addition sites as violating-monitor
maintenance-only receptors based on certified monitoring data and
regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. This section provides an
overview of the modeling developments that resulted in those analytical
conclusions, which are used here to make good neighbor determinations
for these five additional states.
The EPA released several documents containing projected ozone
design values, contributions, and information relevant to air agencies
for evaluation of interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) in which the Agency requested comment on
preliminary interstate ozone transport data including projected ozone
design values and interstate contributions for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform.\36\ In the NODA, the EPA used the year 2023 as the
analytic year for this preliminary modeling because this year aligns
with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\37\ On October 27, 2017, the EPA
released a memorandum (October 2017 memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response
[[Page 12675]]
to comments on the NODA, and was intended to provide information to
assist states' efforts to develop SIP submissions to address interstate
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
\37\ 82 FR at 1735.
\38\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum (March 2018
memorandum) noting that the same 2023 modeling data released in the
October 2017 memorandum could also be useful for identifying potential
downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at
Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\39\ The March 2018
memorandum also included the then newly available contribution modeling
data for 2023 to assist states in evaluating their impact on potential
downwind air quality problems for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS under
Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\40\ The EPA
subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and October 2018,
providing additional information to states developing interstate
transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate
to apply in Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, and
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems
maintaining the standard at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018 (``March 2018 memorandum''),
available in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\40\ The March 2018 memorandum, however, provided, ``While the
information in this memorandum and the associated air quality
analysis data could be used to inform the development of these SIPs,
the information is not a final determination regarding states'
obligations under the good neighbor provision. Any such
determination would be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.''
\41\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018 (``August 2018 memorandum''),
and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the release of the modeling data shared in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA performed updated modeling using a 2016 base year
emissions modeling platform (i.e., 2016 Version 1 Emissions Platform
Modeling, or ``2016v1''). This emissions platform was developed under
the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state collaborative
project.\42\ This collaborative project was a multi-year joint effort
by the EPA, MJOs, and states to develop a new, more recent emissions
platform for use by the EPA and states in regulatory modeling as an
improvement over the dated 2011-based platform that the EPA had used to
project ozone design values and contribution data provided in the 2017
and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone
design values and contributions for 2023. On October 30, 2020, in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
released and accepted public comment on 2023 modeling that used the
2016v1 emissions platform.\43\ Although the Revised CSAPR Update
addressed transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the projected design
values and contributions from the 2016v1 platform were also useful for
identifying downwind ozone problems and linkages with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The results of this modeling, as well as the underlying
modeling files, are included in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
The 2016v1 emissions modeling technical support document is
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272-0187. Both dockets
are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
\43\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981.
\44\ See the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, included in
the Headquarters docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the final Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA made further
updates to the 2016-based emissions platform to include updated onroad
mobile emissions from Version 3 of the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES) model (MOVES3) \45\ and updated emissions projections
for EGUs that reflected the emissions reductions from the Revised CSAPR
Update, recent information on plant closures, and other inventory
improvements. The EPA published these emissions inventories on its
website in September of 2021 and invited initial feedback from states
and other interested stakeholders.\46\ The construct of the updated
emissions platform, (i.e., 2016 Version 2 Emissions Platform Modeling,
or ``2016v2''), is described in the ``Technical Support Document (TSD):
Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 North American
Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v2 Emissions
Modeling TSD, and is included in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. The
EPA performed air quality modeling using the 2016v2 emissions to
provide projections of ozone design values and contributions in 2023
and 2026 that reflect the effects on air quality of the 2016v2
emissions platform. The EPA used the results of the 2016v2 modeling to
inform proposed and final actions on 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor
obligations for Iowa and Kansas.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Additional details and documentation related to the MOVES3
model can be found at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
\46\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.
\47\ The EPA was obligated by consent-decree deadline to
finalize its action for Iowa and Kansas by April 30, 2022, and was
unable to consider or incorporate the later comments received on the
2016v2 modeling that were used to inform the 2016v3 modeling
informing the final Disapproval action and final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan in early 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also used the 2016v2 emissions inventories and modeling to
support proposed actions for several states, including the EPA's
previous proposals on Arizona and Tennesse, as well as the proposed
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In response to comments received for these
rulemakings, the EPA updated the 2016v2 inventories and model design to
construct another emissions platform (i.e., 2016 Version 3 Emissions
Platform Modeling, or ``2016v3''), which was used to update the air
quality modeling. The EPA used this updated modeling to inform a final
rulemaking taking final action on 21 interstate transport SIP
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and to inform the final Federal
Good Neighbor Plan.48 49 In its final actions on both SIP
disapprovals, and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA provided an
explanation of the adjustments and other modifications made to
construct the 2016v3 platform. Details on the 2016v3 air quality
modeling and the methods for projecting design values and determining
contributions in 2023 and 2026 based on this platform are described in
the TSD titled ``Air Quality
[[Page 12676]]
Modeling Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,''
hereafter known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.\50\ Additional
details related to the 2016v3 emissions platform are located in the TSD
titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v3 North
American Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v3
Emissions Modeling TSD, included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\49\ In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified and
finalized FIPs for 23 states. This included the 21 states included
in the SIP Disapproval action, as well as Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The EPA had an obligation to finalize a FIP for these two states
(and Utah) following the EPA's finding of a failure to submit a SIP
from these two states (84 FR 66612). The EPA has not since received
SIP submissions from Pennsylvania or Virginia.
\50\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\51\ 2016v3 Emissions Modeling TSD in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposed action, the EPA primarily relies on modeling based
on the 2016v3 emissions platform coupled with measured data in Steps 1
and 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, which will
generally be referenced within this action as the ``2016v3 modeling''
for 2023 and 2026. As discussed further in section III.D.2. of this
document, the EPA is also applying its findings regarding violating-
monitor maintenance-only receptors in 2023 using certified monitoring
data and regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. The EPA used the
2016v3 modeling to calculate contributions to these receptors. By again
using this same set of monitoring data and updated modeling results,
the EPA is using the most current and technically appropriate
information for this proposed rulemaking and also ensuring that its
regulatory determinations for these remaining states are wholly
consistent with the findings informing the EPA's final determinations
for all of the states included in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
In this proposed action, the EPA is accepting public comment on the
2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor methodology, solely as they
relate to Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interstate
transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not
reopening the modeling in relation to any other State or regulatory
action. Any comments received on the modeling that are not relevant to
the evaluation of these states' interstate transport obligations will
be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
States may have chosen to rely on the results of prior versions of
EPA's modeling and/or alternative modeling performed by states or MJOs
to evaluate downwind air quality problems and contributions as part of
their SIP submissions. The EPA is not proposing to disapprove any
State's submission in this action based on the State's choice of
modeling, but, consistent with its disapproval action, based on the
EPA's evaluation of the entire record, which aims to factually
determine whether states are projected to significantly contribute to
or interfere with maintenance in the 2023 analytical year. See 88 FR at
9343. In section IV.B. of this document, the EPA evaluates how Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee used air quality modeling
information in their SIP submissions.
A summary of the methodology and results of the 2016v3 modeling for
2023 and 2026, along with the application of the EPA's Step 1 and Step
2 methodology for identifying receptors and upwind states that
contribute to those receptors can be found in the Final Good Neighbor
Plan AQM TSD. That document also contains explanations as to how
current measured ozone levels based on data for 2021 and 2022 at other
monitoring sites (i.e., monitoring sites that are not projected to be
receptors in 2023 based on air quality modeling) confirm the likely
continuation of elevated ozone levels in 2023 at these locations. This
analysis shows that each of the five states in this action are linked
at or above (i.e., contributing equal to or more than) 1 percent of the
NAAQS to one or more of these monitors. Kansas and Tennessee are linked
only to violating-monitor receptors, and not to modeling-based
receptors. In recognition that the EPA had not proposed these sites as
receptors, linkages to such receptors were used only in a
``confirmatory'' way to inform the final Disapproval action and Good
Neighbor Plan (i.e., to reinforce linkage findings as to states that
were otherwise linked to modeling-based receptors). In this proposed
action, the EPA finds the existence of such linkages is sufficient to
establish that a State contributes to such receptors and is thus an
adequate basis on which to propose disapproval of the SIP submissions
from Kansas and Tennesse.
D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS
The EPA has applied a consistent set of policy judgments across all
states for purposes of evaluating interstate transport obligations and
the approvability of interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015
ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and proposes to
continue to do so in this action. These policy judgments conform with
relevant case law and past Agency practice as reflected in the CSAPR
and related rulemakings. Employing a nationally consistent approach is
particularly important in the context of interstate ozone transport,
which is a regional-scale pollution problem characterized by the
collective contribution from many upwind states to geographically
dispersed monitors over distances of hundreds of miles. Effective
policy solutions to the problem of interstate ozone transport going
back to the NOX SIP Call have necessitated the application
of a uniform framework of policy judgments to ensure an ``efficient and
equitable'' approach. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 572
U.S. 489, 519 (2014).
In the March, August, and October 2018 memoranda, the EPA
recognized that states may be able to establish alternative approaches
to addressing their interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS that vary from a nationally uniform framework. The EPA emphasized
in these memoranda, however, that such alternative approaches must be
technically justified and appropriate in light of the facts and
circumstances of each particular State's SIP submission. In general,
the EPA continues to believe that deviation from a nationally
consistent approach to ozone transport must have a well-documented
technical basis that is consistent with CAA obligations and relevant
case law. Where states submitted SIP submissions that rely on any such
potential concepts as the EPA or others may have identified or
suggested in the past, the EPA will evaluate whether the State
adequately justified the technical and legal basis for doing so.
The EPA notes that certain potential concepts included in an
attachment to the March 2018 memorandum require unique consideration,
and these ideas do not constitute Agency guidance with respect to
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Attachment A
to the March 2018 memorandum identified a ``Preliminary List of
Potential Flexibilities'' that could potentially inform SIP
development. However, the EPA made clear in both the March 2018
memorandum \52\ and in Attachment A that the list of ideas was not
endorsed by the Agency but rather ``comments provided in various
forums'' on which the EPA sought ``feedback from interested
stakeholders.'' \53\ Further, Attachment A stated, ``EPA is not at this
time making any determination that the ideas discussed below are
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, nor are we specifically
recommending that states
[[Page 12677]]
use these approaches.'' \54\ Attachment A to the March 2018 memorandum,
therefore, does not constitute Agency guidance, but was intended to
generate further discussion around potential approaches to addressing
ozone transport among interested stakeholders. To the extent states
sought to develop or rely on one or more of these ideas in support of
their SIP submissions, the EPA will thoroughly review the technical and
legal justifications for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A.
\53\ Id. at A-1.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section describes the EPA's analytic
framework and interpretation of the critical terms of the good neighbor
provision with respect to analytic year, definition of nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, selection of contribution threshold, and
multifactor control strategy assessment.
1. Selection of Analytic Years
In this section, the EPA describes its process for selecting
analytic years for air quality modeling and analyses performed to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors and identify upwind
State linkages. The EPA is retaining the 2023 and 2026 analytical years
used to inform the obligations of the 23 states included in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, to ensure consistency and equitable treatment of
all states. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA evaluated air
quality to identify receptors at Step 1 and evaluate interstate
contributions at Step 2 for two analytic years: 2023 and 2026.\55\
These years are the last full ozone seasons before the Moderate and
Serious area attainment dates for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (ozone seasons
for purposes of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan run each year from May
1-September 30, see 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.40(c)(1)). To
demonstrate attainment by these deadlines, downwind states would be
required to rely on design values calculated using ozone data from 2021
through 2023 and 2024 through 2026, respectively. Areas that do not
attain by the deadline may be ``bumped up'' to a higher nonattainment
classification level per CAA sections 181 and 182, thereby incurring
additional ongoing obligations. Thus, in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, consistent with each of its prior good neighbor rulemakings, the
EPA focused its analysis on the last full ozone seasons before the
attainment dates (i.e., 2023 and 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ While the 2023 analytic year provides a sufficient basis to
act on the SIP submissions in this action, consistent with the EPA's
Disapproval action, see 88 FR 9340-41, the EPA uses the 2026
analytic year to ensure a complete Step 3 analysis in the context of
developing the FIP, see 88 FR 36694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes that in applying its 2023 and 2026 analytics
to inform this action, it may be perceived as acting inconsistently
with a longstanding policy of always considering a future analytic year
from the standpoint of the timing of its rulemaking action. However,
the EPA determined that several important, overriding considerations
warrant adopting this approach in this supplemental rulemaking. As
explained in section I.A. of this document, it is imperative to
maintain a consistent set of analytical and policy determinations
across all states in the context of addressing the interstate ozone
problem; the EPA is doing so by using a consistent set of data and
analytical conclusions between the states included in this action and
those for which the EPA has already rendered final determinations in
the final SIP Disapproval action and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Were the EPA to conduct a new set of air quality analyses tied to years
beyond 2023 or 2026, the EPA would separately evaluate these states
using different data than that which informed and defined the
obligations of all other states, solely as a result of the timing of
the EPA's action on these states. Where the need for parity among
states or other jurisdictions in like circumstances warrants it, courts
have recognized that it may be appropriate for agencies like the EPA to
rely on a unified dataset to ensure consistency in treatment. See Bd.
County Commissioners of Weld County v. EPA, 72 F.4th 284, 290 (D.C.
Cir. 2023) (upholding as reasonable the EPA's determination that
``greater parity among counties and faster turnaround [ ] make the
original data a better choice than partial updating''). The importance
of use of a single, already-developed dataset focused on the years 2023
and 2026 to define good neighbor obligations for all states to ensure
consistency among states and for ``faster turnaround'' to complete this
supplemental rulemaking is, in the EPA's judgment, sufficiently
compelling to justify this approach here.
The EPA's use of a common and unified dataset here is consistent
with all of its past good neighbor rulemakings, including those in
which the EPA conducted updated air quality analysis to address
remaining good neighbor obligations. In both the CSAPR Update and the
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA took action to address good neighbor FIP
actions that had been remanded to the EPA. In each case, the EPA
addressed the remanded obligations for all of the covered states
through analysis of a new analytic year. This ensured consistency among
all of the states where there were good neighbor obligations that
needed to be addressed. See, e.g., 86 FR 23067-68 (discussing error
correction for Kentucky ``consistent with EPA's methodology to address
the other 20 states'' included in that action). Further, the EPA
already had updated modeling at hand that could inform its new action.
See, e.g., id. at 23074, 23079-80. Likewise, where all of a group of
states' obligations were being addressed on remand from an action that
had not been vacated (as was the case in both the CSAPR Update and the
Revised CSAPR Update), it was important to reflect the emissions
reductions and air quality improvements that were already being
achieved from the non-vacated action in the baseline. See, e.g., id. at
23075. In this case, the EPA is not re-evaluating a group of states but
addressing additional states in a manner that ensures consistent
treatment with the first set of states. This circumstance is analogous
to the supplemental rulemaking the EPA undertook soon following the
original CSAPR rulemaking to add several states to those programs based
on the same data and analysis that informed the CSAPR. See 76 FR 80760
(December 27, 2011). In the EPA's judgment, the relevant considerations
therefore weigh in favor of using the currently available air quality
data that has already been used to define other states' obligations.
In addition, like the CSAPR supplemental rulemaking, the timing of
this action is the result of procedural happenstance, rather than a
substantive difference in the circumstances of any of these five
states. This timing was driven by the nature of the EPA's prior
proposed or final actions, or lack of such actions, that had been taken
at the time the EPA completed its final, updated air quality analysis
informing its final determinations on other states' obligations in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (explained further in section III.C. of this
document). This final analysis of obligations based on 2023 and 2026
analytics necessitated the EPA's reevaluation of its proposals on
Arizona and Tennessee's SIP submissions, as well as the EPA's past
final actions on Iowa and Kansas' SIPs.\56\ In these circumstances,
given the potential change in the status of these states, the EPA also
found it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity
[[Page 12678]]
for public comment on the EPA's changed basis for action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The EPA has not taken any previous proposed or final action
on New Mexico's SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, shifting the analysis of good neighbor obligations forward
to a new analytic year for these five states would not be relevant to a
proper definition of these good neighbor obligations, and switching the
analytic year(s) for just these five states could create an inequitable
result both amongst other upwind states and between these five states
and the downwind states to which they are linked. Creating a different
set of data for a later year for these states, when the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan has already defined requirements and is in effect for
certain other states, would introduce an interdependency, or ``who goes
first,'' problem that the EPA's framework generally is designed to
avoid. See Ky. Energy & Env't Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir.
Nov. 9, 2023), Slip Op. at 8. The EPA is not reopening the
determinations made for the 23 upwind states covered in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, and 2023 and 2026 were appropriately selected as
the analytical years to inform the EPA's evaluation of these states.
See 88 FR at 36694-96. These years are associated with the statutory
attainment schedule faced by the downwind states with designated
nonattainment areas where the identified receptors are located. It is
at the least reasonable, therefore, to align these five states'
evaluation with the remainder of the states in the country, which will
maintain parity among all jurisdictions, which is preferable to only
``partially updating'' the analysis in the case of a handful of states.
Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290. This is a particularly important
consideration in implementing the good neighbor provision for ozone.
The EPA must ensure each state is held to the elimination of its own
significant contribution. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 920-
21 (D.C. Cir. 2008). And interstate ozone pollution presents a
``collective contribution'' problem in which the EPA must allocate a
fair share of responsibility among sources across multiple states. See
Maryland v. EPA, 1185 F.3d at 120304 (D.C. Cir. 2020); id. at 1204
(``So long as upwind sources significantly contribute to [a state's]
nonattainment at its 2021 [Marginal] attainment deadline, they violate
the Good Neighbor Provision.'').
As the Maryland court recognized, the consequences on downwind
nonattainment areas from failure to obtain relief from upwind
significant contribution are not just continuing poor air quality, but
also regulatory requirements that apply for years into the future,
including ``a requirement to provide for annual emissions reductions in
SIPs.'' Id. (citing CAA section 182(b)). The relief that can be
afforded through addressing the upwind states' significant
contribution, as proposed in this action, will therefore potentially
lessen regulatory burdens on downwind states that Congress commanded
they are not to bear alone. See 88 FR 36840 (discussing the history of
downwind states' and the EPA's reliance on emissions reductions
achieved through prior good neighbor rules in, for example,
redesignation actions and maintenance plans); cf. Maryland, 958 F.3d at
1200 (a state that cannot obtain relief from an upwind state's
significant contribution to a continuing nonattainment designation ``is
stuck in regulatory limbo''). Thus, using a common dataset makes good
sense in this context; it is consistent with the requirements and the
purpose of the good neighbor provision, and it ensures these
obligations are implemented both expeditiously and in a consistent and
equitable manner. Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ While use of a common dataset makes sense for the reasons
stated, the EPA notes that it is not aware of other data sets,
including either monitoring data or modeling projections, that would
suggest alternative regulatory conclusions from those proposed here.
As evidenced by the most recent certified monitoring data and design
values from 2021 and 2022 used in the violating-monitor receptor-
identification methodology, relatively elevated ozone levels
exceeding the NAAQS continue to be observed throughout much of the
continental U.S., including in the designated nonattainment areas
where many of the ozone-transport receptors identified in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of a common set of air quality data was upheld in Weld
County. The court, however, went on to find that another portion of the
EPA's action under review constituted impermissible retroactive
rulemaking, because it ``effectively backdated'' a nonattainment
designation, leaving a state that would have had a three-year period to
reach attainment in the position of ``missing a compliance deadline
that passed before the underlying legal obligation was imposed.'' 72
F.4th at 293. This proposed action does not operate retroactively. The
EPA's use of the 2023 analytic year does not in and of itself impose
any obligations on any sources or states. Rather it provides a common
dataset to assess whether any state is contributing to downwind
problems attaining the NAAQS. The EPA proposes to set compliance
obligations based on the amount of time needed for sources to come into
compliance and does not propose to impose liability on such sources for
not meeting the proposed obligations at some point in the past. See
section VII.A.4. and B. of this document. Nor would the proposed rule
apply retroactively to the five states with SIP submissions proposed to
be disapproved. The EPA is not proposing to backdate the date of
finalization of these proposed disapprovals to sometime in the past.
Rather, if the proposed disapprovals are finalized, the only legal
consequence--the establishment of a duty on the EPA to promulgate a
FIP--would run from the date a final action is taken. Unlike the three-
year ``runway'' allowed to reach attainment that the court found had
been impermissibly denied to the state in Weld County, 72 F.4th at 293,
the statute affords no such period following a SIP disapproval. CAA
section 110(c)(1). The EPA need not wait a single day to promulgate a
FIP upon issuing a disapproval of a SIP submission. EME Homer City, 489
U.S. at 509. Nor is the EPA obligated to give states a second chance to
submit a SIP before issuing a FIP. Id. Nonetheless, the states covered
in this supplemental proposed rulemaking have been on notice since the
issuance of the 2016v3 modeling and violating-monitor methodology in
connection with the SIP Disapproval and Federal Good Neighbor Plan
actions in winter of 2023 that they may be subject to a good neighbor
FIP due to identified linkages with downwind receptors. 88 FR 36656.
None of these five states has moved since that time to submit a revised
SIP submission to address the relevant requirements.
For consistency, the Agency similarly conducted its overcontrol
analysis for this action using the 2023 and 2026 data (see section
VI.D. of this document). The EPA recognizes that it is appropriate to
provide sufficient lead time to allow sources in these five states to
comply with the proposed requirements. Based on the compliance-timing
analysis conducted in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan and applied
here (as discussed in section VII. of this document), the dates
proposed for the onset of these requirements for these five states fall
after the 2023 and 2026 analytic years. This too is a matter of
happenstance and does not justify a deviation from the definition of
these states' good neighbor obligations. Similarly, assuming favorable
outcomes in the ongoing litigation resulting in stays of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan for several states pending judicial review, the EPA
anticipates adjusting the timing of compliance obligations if these
states are eventually made subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
These circumstances are analogous to an issue the EPA addressed in the
final
[[Page 12679]]
Federal Good Neighbor Plan regarding the ability of individual sources
to apply for and obtain compliance extensions. The EPA explained that
where sources obtained such extensions, the EPA did not intend to
conduct further analysis of whether those reductions were still
required based on updated air quality analysis. As the EPA explained,
the Agency did not think individual sources should gain the benefit of
delaying emissions reductions simply in the hopes that they could show
those reductions would be overcontrol. This would introduce an inter-
dependency into the analysis, whereas each source must be held to the
elimination of its portion of significant contribution. Necessity, the
EPA explained, may demand some additional amount of time for
compliance, but equity demands that individual sources not gain an
untoward advantage from delay and reliance on other sources' timelier
compliance. See 88 FR at 36750 n.253. Thus, here, the EPA continues to
conduct its overcontrol analysis using the common datasets for 2023 and
2026, to ensure consistent and equitable determinations for what
constitutes ``significant contribution'' even if the implementation of
those emissions reductions may be delayed in certain states or for
certain sources.
Thus, the EPA proposes to continue to use its 2023 and 2026
analytics, to ensure parity by holding all states to a consistent set
of data in defining good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
to avoid improperly shifting the burden of emissions reductions to
other upwind and downwind states, and to provide for an efficient and
administratively workable resolution of these remaining obligations for
five additional states.
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 1, the EPA identifies monitoring sites that are projected
to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023
analytic year. This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of the
terms ``nonattainment'' and ``maintenance'' as used in the good
neighbor provision in the context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at
9341-42. Where the EPA's analysis shows that a site does not meet the
definition of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, the EPA excludes
that site from further analysis under the EPA's 4-step interstate
transport framework. At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework, the EPA considers those sites identified as a nonattainment
or maintenance receptor in 2023 and identifies which upwind states
contribute to those receptors above the contribution threshold.
The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in this action is the same as that used in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\58\ This approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina.\59\ To summarize this methodology:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668 for additional details on the EPA's evaluation
nonattainment and maintenance receptor identification.
\59\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-11 (holding that
the EPA must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as those monitoring
sites that are projected to have average design values that exceed the
NAAQS and that are also measuring nonattainment based on the most
recent monitored design values. This approach is consistent with prior
transport rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that both measure
nonattainment based on recent monitoring data (here, using certified
2021 data to be consistent with the analysis in the Good Neighbor Plan)
and that the EPA modeling projected to be in nonattainment in the
analytic year (i.e., 2023).60 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The 2021 design values were the most current official
design values available for use in the 2016v3 modeling. The 2021
ozone design values, by monitoring site, can be found in the file
``Final GNP O3 DVs Contributions'', in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
\61\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same concept,
relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to define
nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at
25241, 25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d
at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable the EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA identified a receptor to be a ``maintenance''
receptor for purposes of defining interference with maintenance,
consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).\62\ Specifically, the EPA
identified maintenance receptors as those receptors that would have
difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into
account historical variability in air quality at that receptor. The
variability in air quality was determined by evaluating the ``maximum''
future design value at each receptor based on a projection of the
maximum measured design value over the relevant period. The EPA
interprets the projected maximum future design value to be a potential
future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology that yielded
maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set analyzed for
that receptor (i.e., ozone conducive meteorology). The EPA also
recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions (e.g.,
dominant wind direction, temperatures, and air mass patterns) promoting
ozone formation that led to maximum concentrations in the measured data
may reoccur in the future. The maximum design value gives a reasonable
projection of future air quality at the receptor under a scenario in
which such conditions do, in fact, reoccur. The projected maximum
design value is used to identify upwind emissions that, under those
circumstances, could interfere with the downwind area's ability to
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonattainment receptors are also, by definition, maintenance
receptors, and so the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to those receptors that are not nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the concepts for maintenance receptors, as described
earlier, the EPA identifies ``maintenance-only'' receptors as those
monitoring sites that have projected average design values above the
level of the applicable NAAQS, but that are not currently measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent official design values.\63\ In
addition, those monitoring sites with projected average design values
below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values above the
NAAQS are also identified as ``maintenance-only'' receptors, even if
they are currently measuring nonattainment based on the most recent
official design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The Agency often uses the terms maintenance receptor and
maintenance-only receptor interchangeably when discussing
maintenance receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has looked closely at measured ozone levels at ambient
monitoring sites in 2021 and 2022 for the purposes of informing the
identification of potential additional receptors in 2023. As explained
in more detail in the February 13, 2022, final
[[Page 12680]]
action disapproving 19 states' good neighbor SIP submissions, and
partially approving and partially disapproving 2 states' good neighbor
SIP submissions (``Disapproval action''), see 88 FR at 9349-50, the EPA
finds there is a basis to consider certain sites with elevated ozone
levels that are not otherwise identified as receptors to be an
additional type of maintenance-only receptor given the likelihood that
ozone levels above the NAAQS could persist at those locations through
at least 2023. These are referred to as violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptors (violating-monitor receptors). In this action, the EPA
proposes to use certified ambient monitoring data as an additional
method to identify maintenance-only receptors. More specifically,
violating-monitor receptors are monitoring sites with measured 2021 and
2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high maximum daily average 8-
hour ozone concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, despite having model-
projected average and maximum design values for 2023 below the
NAAQS.\64\ The EPA finds these sites are at continuing risk of failing
to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which justifies categorizing these
sites as maintenance-only receptors. By applying the criteria that
certified 2021 and 2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high
maximum daily average 8-hour ozone concentrations must all exceed the
NAAQS the EPA gives due consideration to both measured air quality data
and its modeling projections. This reasonably identifies monitoring
sites as receptors in 2023 using this methodology. If sites do not meet
these criteria, then the EPA could reasonably anticipate these sites to
not have a problem maintaining the NAAQS in 2023 and should therefore
not be considered receptors.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ A design value is calculated using the annual fourth-
highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration averaged over 3
years.
\65\ We also note that 2023 monitoring data is not yet
certified, and further, because the Federal Good Neighbor Plan was
in effect in several states during the 2023 ozone season (and
sources may have otherwise voluntarily taken emissions-reduction
measures consistent with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan either
earlier than the effective date or in states where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan was stayed), the 2023 monitoring data is less reliable
for use in establishing an air quality baseline, i.e., one in the
absence of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not reopening its Step 1 methodologies or determinations
in this action as to the 23 states included in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes to apply this same methodology to
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Comments that are
unrelated to or go beyond the application of these methodologies to
these five states will be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 2 the contribution of each upwind State to each receptor in
the 2023 analytic year is quantified. This approach reflects how the
Agency gives meaning to the term ``contribute'' in the good neighbor
provision in relation to the ``collective contribution'' problem posed
by interstate ozone pollution. See 88 FR at 9342. The contribution
metric used in Step 2 is defined as the average impact from each State
to each receptor on the days with the highest ozone concentrations at
the receptor based on the 2023 modeling. If a State's contribution
value does not equal or exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb for the 2015 ozone NAAQS), the upwind State is not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA, therefore,
concludes that the State does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a State's average contribution equals or
exceeds the 1 percent threshold, the EPA further evaluates the State's
emissions in Step 3, considering both air quality and cost as part of a
multi-factor analysis, to determine what, if any, emissions might be
deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must be eliminated pursuant to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
In this proposed action, the EPA relies in the first instance on
the 1 percent threshold for the purpose of evaluating a State's
contribution to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind receptors. This is consistent with the
Step 2 approach that the EPA applied in the Disapproval action and in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has acknowledged that states
may have been able to justify use of a different threshold at Step 2.
For reasons explained in section IV. of this document, no State
included in this action successfully made this demonstration. In
addition, the EPA explained in both the Disapproval action and in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan that the need for consistent treatment of
all states counsels against recognizing alternative thresholds on a
state-by-state basis. Based on its experience since the release of the
August 2018 memorandum, the EPA has also determined, as explained in
the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan, that it is not a
good use of Agency resources nor is it wise policy for the EPA to
attempt to justify the use of an alternative threshold on behalf of any
State that failed to conduct an adequate analysis itself. Likewise,
maintaining continuity across ozone NAAQS through consistent
application of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold at Step 2 is appropriate,
so that, as the NAAQS is revised and made more protective, the
contribution threshold is correspondingly adjusted as well. See 88 FR
at 36712-17; 88 FR at 9371-75. See also 86 FR at 23085 (use of 1
percent threshold in the Revised CSAPR Update); 81 FR at 74518 (basis
for use of 1 percent threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR
Update); 76 FR at 48237-38 (original determination to use 1 percent
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR).
Therefore, application of a consistent contribution threshold is
important to identify those upwind states that should have
responsibility for addressing their contribution to the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance problems to which they collectively
contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent of the NAAQS as the screening
metric to evaluate collective contribution from many upwind states also
allows the EPA (and states) to apply a consistent framework to evaluate
interstate emissions transport under the interstate transport provision
from one NAAQS to the next and helps ensure that good neighbor
obligations align with the stringency of the NAAQS.
The issue of the appropriate contribution threshold to apply was
thoroughly addressed in the Disapproval action and the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan rulemakings, and the EPA responded to numerous comments
on this topic. The EPA is not reopening this issue in this action,
except as to the question of whether there is any reason to regard the
Step 2 contribution threshold differently for any of these five
additional states. The Agency, however, sees no basis to do so.
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, the EPA
further evaluates a State's emissions, in light of multiple factors,
including air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance and, thus, must be eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of
the phrases ``contribute significantly'' or ``interfere
[[Page 12681]]
with maintenance'' as used in the good neighbor provision in the
context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at 9342-43.
Under the EPA's longstanding approach to eliminating significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, at
Step 3, a multi-factor assessment of potential emissions controls would
be conducted for states linked at Step 1 and 2. The EPA's analysis at
Step 3 in prior Federal actions addressing interstate transport
requirements has primarily focused on an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness of potential emissions controls (on a marginal cost-per-
ton basis), the total emissions reductions that may be achieved by
requiring such controls (if applied across all linked upwind states),
and an evaluation of the air quality impacts such emissions reductions
would have on the downwind receptors to which a State is linked; other
factors may potentially be relevant if adequately supported.
The EPA has consistently applied this general approach to Step 3
when identifying emissions contributions that the Agency has determined
to be ``significant'' (or interfere with maintenance) in each of its
prior Federal and regional ozone transport rulemakings, and this
interpretation of the statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court. See
EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While the EPA has not
directed states that they must conduct a Step 3 analysis in precisely
the manner the EPA has done in its prior regional transport
rulemakings, State implementation plans addressing the obligations in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ``any source or other type
of emissions activity within the State'' from emitting air pollutants
which will contribute significantly to downwind air quality problems.
Thus, states must undertake an analysis similar to the EPA's analysis
(or an alternative approach to defining ``significance'' that comports
with the statute's objectives) to determine whether and to what degree
emissions from a State should be ``prohibited'' to eliminate emissions
that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere
with maintenance of'' the NAAQS in any other state. See 88 FR at 9342-
43, 9375-76.
In general, where the EPA's or state-provided alternative air
quality and contribution modeling establishes that a State is linked at
Steps 1 and 2, it will be insufficient at Step 3 for a State merely to
point to its existing rules requiring control measures as a basis for
SIP submission approval. In general, the emissions-reducing effects of
all existing emissions control requirements are already reflected in
the future year projected air quality results of the modeling for Steps
1 and 2.
If the State is shown to still be linked to one or more downwind
receptor(s) despite these existing controls, but that State believes it
has no outstanding good neighbor obligations, the EPA expects the State
to provide sufficient justification to support a conclusion that the
State has adequate provisions prohibiting ``any source or other type of
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will'' ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by,'' any other State with respect to the
NAAQS. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the EPA has not
prescribed a particular method for this assessment, the EPA expects
states at a minimum to present a sufficient technical evaluation. This
would typically include information on emissions sources, applicable
control technologies, emissions reductions, costs, cost-effectiveness,
and downwind air quality impacts of the estimated reductions, before
concluding that no additional emissions controls should be
required.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ As examples of general approaches for how such an analysis
could be conducted for their sources, states could look to the CSAPR
Update, 81 FR 74504, 74539-51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246-63; CAIR,
70 FR 25162, 25195-229; or the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356,
57399-405. See also Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086-23116.
Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA has developed
emissions inventories, analyzed different levels of control
stringency at different cost thresholds, and assessed resulting
downwind air quality improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section III.A. in this document, the EPA and states
must give independent significance to Prong 1 (significant contribution
to nonattainment) and Prong 2 (interference with maintenance) when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\67\ The EPA gives effect to Prong 2 through
identifying receptors that may have trouble attaining the NAAQS under
varying air quality and meteorological conditions. EME Homer City
upheld the EPA's approach to using cost to determine ``amounts'' with
respect to both Prong 1 and 2. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572
U.S. at 518-520. The EPA's use of the term ``significant contribution''
in its analysis at the third step of the 4-step interstate transport
framework is applied for both Prongs 1 and 2. This approach to giving
effect to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong has been upheld
twice by the D.C. Circuit. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at 136;
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 325-27. In effect, the EPA's determination of
what level of upwind contribution constitutes ``interference'' with a
maintenance receptor is the same determination as what constitutes
``significant contribution'' for a nonattainment receptor. Nonetheless,
this continues to give independent effect to Prong 2 because the EPA
applies a broader definition for identifying maintenance receptors,
which accounts for the possibility of problems maintaining the NAAQS
under realistic potential future conditions. While the EPA and others
may occasionally use the language of ``significance'' as a shorthand
for determinations at the third step under both Prongs 1 and 2, this
does not detract from the fact that the EPA gives Prong 2 independent
effect under the 4-step interstate transport framework. Alternative
approaches to defining and prohibiting emissions that ``interfere with
maintenance'' must be, like the EPA's approach, legally and technically
justified and give effect to the language of the statute in a manner
that ensures states' good neighbor obligations are defined in a
consistent and equitable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section IV.B. and V.A. of this document, no states
whose SIP submissions the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove in
this action conducted an adequate analysis at Step 3, following either
the EPA's approach or an alternative approach. As explained in section
I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VI. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to apply the same Step 3 analysis and
methodology completed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states
to the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee. The EPA's approach to Step 3 is explained in section
III.B.1.c. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 88 FR 36654, at 36678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
At Step 4, states (or the EPA) develop permanent and federally-
enforceable control strategies to achieve the emissions reductions
determined to be necessary at Step 3 to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS, as necessary to comply with the terms of the good neighbor
provision requiring that SIPs (or FIPs) ``contain adequate provisions
prohibiting'' such emissions. 88 FR at 9343. These control strategies
[[Page 12682]]
must be included in the State's SIP so that they are made permanent and
federally enforceable. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP]
shall . . . contain adequate provisions--prohibiting . . .''). See also
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d
1169, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by a
State to meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP submission).
As with the previous steps of the framework, as explained in
section I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VII. of
this document, in proposing FIPs for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee, the EPA is proposing to implement necessary emissions
reductions through the same set of permanent and enforceable measures
promulgated for 23 other states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
EPA's approach to Step 4 is explained in section III.B.1.d. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 88 FR 36654, at 36684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
1. Arizona
On September 24, 2018, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the ``Arizona State Implementation
Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``Arizona's
2018 SIP Submission''). Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission addresses the
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including the
good neighbor provisions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Letter dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Submittal of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission describes the 4-step interstate
transport framework established by the EPA to address the good neighbor
provision.\71\ Arizona references the results of the ozone modeling
completed by the EPA using CAMx version 6.40 and 2011 base year, made
available in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework. Arizona noted that the modeling results
cited in the March 2018 memorandum demonstrate that Arizona is not
shown to contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.70
ppb) to any of the modeled nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
other states.\72\ Despite asserting that ``Arizona still maintains that
the one percent threshold is poorly suited for determining contribution
obligations in the Southwestern US,'' Arizona relies on the
contribution threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS at Step 2.\73\ Based
on the model results cited in Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, Arizona
finds that it does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in other states and that it is not necessary to
identify emissions reductions or adopt any permanent or enforceable
controls under the interstate transport provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\74\ Arizona also asserts that the Arizona SIP contains adequate
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arizona will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other State in the future.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Arizona's 2018 SIP submission, 12.
\72\ Id. at 13.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id.
\75\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
On June 24, 2022, the EPA proposed to approve Arizona's 2018 iSIP
Submission as meeting the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\76\ Our proposed approval was based upon the conclusion that
Arizona was not linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, which was supported by the 2016v2 modeling described in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the proposed approval.\77\ In
response to that proposed rulemaking, the EPA received one comment
letter providing evidence to suggest that Arizona likely contributes
significantly to interstate ozone pollution. The commenter alleged that
the 2016v2 modeling arbitrarily omits Arizona contributions to monitors
in El Paso County, Texas, and Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico, and
that Arizona is likely to significantly contribute to ozone
concentrations at these receptors. The commenter also incorporated by
reference comments that the commenter submitted in response to the
EPA's April 6, 2022, proposed FIP addressing regional ozone transport
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, identifying additional alleged flaws and
omissions in the 2016v2 modeling.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022).
\77\ 87 FR 37776, 37782.
\78\ 87 FR 20036 (April 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA
constructed its 2016v3 emissions platform to update ozone transport
modeling in response to these and similar comments received on the
2016v2 modeling and to develop the 2016v3 air quality modeling. The EPA
also recognized that monitoring data for 2021 and 2022 supported
recognizing additional, violating-monitor receptors. The EPA used this
updated air quality analysis to inform its final Disapproval and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan actions.79 80 As described later
in section IV.B.1. of this document, the 2016v3 modeling and violating-
monitor receptor methodology identifies Arizona's maximum contribution
to numerous downwind maintenance receptors to be greater than 1 percent
of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the latest
available modeling indicates that Arizona is linked to downwind
maintenance receptors, the EPA is now withdrawing its 2022 proposed
approval of Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\80\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. New Mexico
The EPA made a finding in 2019 that New Mexico had failed to submit
a complete good neighbor SIP submission. See 84 FR 66612 (December 4,
2019). This triggered the EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for New
Mexico within 2 years. When the EPA failed to do so, multiple parties
brought deadline-suit litigation against the Agency. This resulted in a
consent decree deadline of June 1, 2024, to either promulgate a FIP for
New Mexico or approve a SIP submission fully resolving New Mexico's
good neighbor obligations. WildEarth Guardians v. Regan, No. 22-cv-
00174-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2022); Sierra Club v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv-
01992-JD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023). By stipulation of the parties, that
deadline has now been extended to August 30, 2024. The EPA's duty to
promulgate a FIP for New
[[Page 12683]]
Mexico can only be suspended by the approval of a SIP submission. As
discussed in section IV.B. of this document, the EPA proposes to
disapprove the SIP submission New Mexico subsequently submitted,
described below. This disapproval, if finalized, would not alter or
reset the EPA's pre-existing obligation to promulgate a FIP for New
Mexico.
On July 27, 2021, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
submitted a SIP submission certifying that the State's SIP satisfies
requirements of interstate transport of air pollution for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. On June 9, 2021, on behalf of the City of Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (EHD), the Cabinet Secretary of NMED
submitted to the EPA a certification that Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County, and New Mexico as a whole, ``does not cause or contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.'' \81\ NMED and EHD's submission contained what NMED
characterized as a weight of evidence analysis of New Mexico's
contribution to ozone transport receptors using the data provided in
the EPA's modeling results included as an attachment to the March 2018
memorandum. New Mexico did not explicitly follow the 4-step interstate
transport framework but did examine downwind air quality and New
Mexico's contributions using the analytic year of 2023 to describe New
Mexico's linkages to receptors. On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted a
supplemental letter containing Exhibit A, for the EPA's consideration
in the Agency's review of the NMED and EHD SIP submissions. The
following sections describe NMED and EHD's submissions, including
Exhibit A, and the information provided for each step in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See EHD SIP submission, attachment B, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
For Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, NMED and
EHD SIP submissions relied on the EPA's interstate transport modeling
results that are included as an attachment to the March 2018
memorandum.\82\ These EPA modeling results, using a 2011 base year,
provided: (1) projected average design value and maximum design value
for 2023 for ozone monitors to identify nonattainment or maintenance
receptors and (2) projected average contribution from State emissions
to the projected ozone concentrations at each ozone monitor to identify
upwind state-to-downwind receptor linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ As explained in section IV.A.2.c., NMED's Exhibit A
acknowledged the EPA's 2016v3 modeling results and linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
NMED and EHD's submission presented New Mexico's projected 2023
ozone contributions to maintenance and nonattainment receptors using
the projections from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum. The State
agencies state that in past rulemakings, the EPA has relied upon the 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS standard (0.70 ppb) contribution
threshold when evaluating if an upwind State has a ``potentially
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance'' \83\ impacts air quality in a downwind state. New Mexico
began their Step 2 analysis by using the EPA's 1 percent threshold to
evaluate contribution and identified that the State contributes 1
percent or more of the NAAQS to one maintenance receptor: Weld County
Tower, Colorado (Monitor ID: 081230009), and one nonattainment
receptor, Rocky Flats-N, Colorado (Monitor ID:
080590006).84 85 Additionally, the EPA's March 2018
memorandum modeling indicated that upwind states contribute roughly 8
and 10 percent of the modeled 2023 design value at the Weld County
receptor and the Rocky Flats-N receptor, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ EHD's SIP submission Attachment B, page 7.
\84\ Id. at Table 1, page 4.
\85\ Id. at page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NMED and EHD argue that New Mexico does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at the
Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N receptors. NMED and EHD assert that
a ``weight of evidence'' analysis is more appropriate than relying on a
single, national standard for identifying linkages and determining
whether contributions from an upwind State are significant. NMED and
EHD believe that New Mexico should not be linked to Colorado receptors
in the EPA's transport Step 2 analysis because the majority of the
contribution to these receptors comes directly from Colorado. NMED and
EHD attempt to justify this position by relying on a previous transport
rulemaking that determined certain monitoring sites in California were
not interstate transport receptors. Specifically, New Mexico references
the approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone transport SIP submission, see 81
FR 31513. In that action, the EPA determined that Arizona did not
significantly contribute to two California monitoring sites despite
contributing more than 1 percent of the NAAQS, because the EPA found
the total collective contribution from all upwind states was so low at
these sites that they need not be considered transport receptors. New
Mexico attempts to expand the application of the EPA's reasoning in the
Arizona action, asserting it would also be appropriate not to link New
Mexico, or the other linked upwind states, to the Colorado receptors at
the 1 percent threshold.
NMED and EHD's submission also claims that the relative share of
in-state versus out-of-state contribution in Colorado, topographical
influences on the transport of ozone in Colorado, and other air quality
information support its ``weight-of-evidence'' analysis. To identify
the portion of ozone levels in Colorado coming from in-state emissions
as opposed to upwind-state emissions, New Mexico relied on the EPA's
2018 memorandum modeling data. Based on this data, NMED and EHD
determined in-state emissions outweighed the portion of emissions
coming from upwind states collectively.
NMED and EHD considered the topological influences on ozone
concentrations in the Denver area based on information prepared by
Colorado to support the final 2015 ozone NAAQS designation of the
Denver area.\86\ NMED and EHD assert in their submissions that the
receptors in Colorado are predominantly impacted from local sources and
thus the minimal contributions from upwind states do not warrant
further controls in New Mexico. They contend that the topography of the
Denver nonattainment area (NAA) disproportionally favors the formation
of ozone due to local emissions. As support for their argument, NMED
and EHD point to the EPA's TSD supporting the designation of the Denver
NAA: ``The three key circulation patterns (drainage flow, upslope flow,
and mountain-plains solenoid circulation), in conjunction with the
surface topography, in the [Denver] area serve to trap emissions and
produce ozone in the basin formed by the surrounding higher elevation
features. Further, these circulation patterns serve to recirculate
prior day emissions into the Denver area population centers as the
mountain-plains solenoid flow lifts the polluted atmosphere up the
mountain slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the west in warm afternoons,
and then returns the polluted air to the surface as the lofted air
circulates back to the east and
[[Page 12684]]
subsides overnight.'' \87\ New Mexico presents this information to
further support their claim that the Denver NAA is significantly more
impacted by emissions from within Colorado than from interstate
transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id. at page 17. See also 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\87\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/co_tsd_final_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMED and EHD's final weight of evidence factor consisted of an
assessment of ozone air quality monitoring data and design values.
Here, they identify downward trends in ozone precursor emissions
(NOX and VOC) from 2005 to 2018. NMED and EHD cite New
Mexico's current on-the-books rules as sufficient to resolve the
State's transport responsibilities and as reason to believe downward
trends in emissions and ozone concentrations at the receptors for which
they contribute greater than 0.70 ppb (Rock Flats-N and Well County
Tower monitors) will continue to decrease. NMED included data on an
overall trend of slightly increasing VOC emissions and decreasing
NOX emissions in New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, and
Texas from 2002 to 2014. New Mexico also provided data exhibiting a
decrease of VOC and NOX emissions from Colorado during the
same time period. New Mexico credited the downward emissions trends to
permanent and enforceable control measures. New Mexico made an argument
that overall decreasing ozone concentrations and emissions trends in
the state, and other upwind states, correlate with reduced
contributions to nonattainment and maintenance receptors outside of New
Mexico. NMED and EHD concluded that decreasing ambient ozone
concentrations in Colorado is indicative of New Mexico contributing
less to ozone in downwind states as time goes on.
This concluded New Mexico's analysis in its original submission.
New Mexico did not conduct an analysis of emissions-control
opportunities within the State at Step 3. NMED and EHD concluded it
would be unreasonable for New Mexico to take further actions to address
its obligations under the good neighbor provisions for the ozone NAAQS.
Thus, at Step 4, NMED and EHD determined that no additional permanent
and enforceable measures were necessary to reduce the State's
emissions.
c. New Mexico Letter
On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted for the EPA's consideration a
letter with an attachment, Exhibit A. The letter indicates its
submission is in response to the EPA's indication that it may
disapprove New Mexico's SIP submission. To the EPA's awareness, this
letter was not subject to public notice or rulemaking process at the
State level and does not in itself purport to be a SIP submission or a
revision to New Mexico's SIP. As such, the EPA takes the information in
the letter under advisement but does not consider this letter to be a
new SIP submission in its own right or part of the SIP submission dated
July 27, 2021.
In its letter, NMED asserts the EPA should account for emissions
reductions that have occurred since 2020 that could resolve the State's
transport obligations. NMED identified emissions reductions from two
current compliance orders that resulted in a reduction of 236 tons of
annual NOX emissions. NMED entered into a settlement
agreement with ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd (ETC) for its Jal #3 plant,
compliance order No. AQB 20-63, which was lodged on August 25, 2021.
The settlement agreement mandated that the facility remove its sulfur
recovery unit, which resulted in an emissions reduction of 4.8 tons of
NOX per year. Additionally, NMED entered into a consent
decree with ETC for its Eunice Gas Plant, compliance order No. AQB 20-
64, which was lodged on September 9, 2021. The consent decree required
the shutdown of the Eunice plant, except for Amanda Booster Station,
resulting in emissions decrease of 231.4 tons of NOX per
year. Lastly, NMED references emissions reductions anticipated from the
consent decree lodged with Matador Production Company, filed on March
27, 2023. NMED is anticipating emissions reductions of a total 77 tons
of NOX over 3 years and to occur before 2030.
NMED argues that the emissions reductions resulting from these
compliance orders are satisfactory to fulfil the emissions reductions
that would occur under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015
Ozone Standard. NMED states that based on the formula applied under the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified 30 tons of emissions
reductions achievable in 2023 under the current formula for EGU
emissions reductions.\88\ NMED claims that the ``EPA indicated that
this 30 ton per year reduction would be all that is necessary to meet
its good neighbor FIP requirements.'' \89\ NMED argues that as the
NOX emissions decreases outlined in the provided consent
decrees are greater than the emissions reductions anticipated in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the State will have met its obligations for
interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule Technical
Support Document. Table B-3. 2024 Ozone Season NOX
Emissions for States at Different Uniform Control Scenarios.
\89\ NMED's July 5, 2023, letter to the EPA, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Tennessee
On September 13, 2018, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.90 91 The SIP
submission provided Tennessee's analysis of its impact to downwind
states and concluded that emissions from the State will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Tennessee's submission
relied on the EPA's modeling results for 2023 using a 2011 base year,
contained in the March 2018, memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.\92\ The Tennessee Department of
Environmental Control (TDEC) reviewed the EPA's 2023 modeling,
concurred with the results, and determined that the EPA's future year
projections were reasonable and account for source shutdowns, new
controls, and fuel switches. TDEC summarized the State's upwind
contribution to 26 nonattainment and maintenance receptors and noted
that according to the modeling, Tennessee's largest impact on any
potential downwind receptor in 2023 would be 0.31 ppb to a
nonattainment receptor and 0.65 ppb to a maintenance receptor.
Tennessee concluded that emissions from Tennessee do not contribute
above 1 percent of the NAAQS or above 1 ppb at any receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The September 13, 2019, SIP submission provided by TDEC was
received by the EPA on September 17, 2018.
\91\ On September 18, 2018, Tennessee submitted multiple SIP
revisions under one cover letter. The EPA is only acting on
Tennessee's 2015 ozone good neighbor interstate transport SIP
requirements in this document.
\92\ The EPA notes that Tennessee's SIP submission is not
organized around the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework for
assessing good neighbor obligations, but the EPA summarizes the
submission using that framework for clarity here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee's submission asserted that NOX emissions are
considered the primary cause of formation of ozone in the southeast
United States, and emphasized a significant reduction in NOX
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs and other large
NOX sources leading to improvements in air quality,
including reductions attributable to
[[Page 12685]]
previous transport rulemakings.\93\ Additionally, TDEC identifies
existing SIP-approved provisions, Federal regulations and programs,
court settlements, and statewide source shutdowns that TDEC believes
limit ozone precursor emissions in the State.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ The Tennessee SIP revision specifically cites the
NOX Budget Trading Program, CAIR, and CSAPR. In addition,
the Tennessee SIP revision discusses Tennessee rule 1200-03-27-.12
(NOX SIP Call requirements for Stationary Boilers and
Combustion Turbines), which had not been approved into the SIP at
the time of the September 13, 2018, submission. The EPA finalized
approval of TAPR 1200-03-27-.12 into the Tennessee SIP on March 2,
2021. See 86 FR 12092.
\94\ See page 9 through 12 of Tennessee's September 13, 2018,
SIP submission for a list of SIP-approved State rules and Federal
rules. This can be found in Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information contained in Tennessee's transport SIP
submission, TDEC concluded that Tennessee does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another
State of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the SIP submission
provides for adequate measures to control ozone precursor emissions.
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
Previously, the EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13,
2018, SIP submission, based on the contribution modeling provided in
the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR 71854 (December 30, 2019). When
the EPA completed updated modeling of the 2023 analytic year in 2020
using a 2016-based emissions modeling platform (2016v1), however, it
became evident that Tennessee was projected to be linked to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors.\95\ As a result, the EPA did
not act on Tennessee's SIP submission when it published a supplemental
proposal in 2021 to approve four other southeastern states' good
neighbor SIP submissions, using the updated 2023 modeling. See 86 FR
37942, 37943 (July 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update'', available
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016v2 modeling comported with the 2016v1 modeling results for
Tennessee, in that it continued to show Tennessee was linked to at
least one downwind-maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Based on this
information and the EPA's evaluation of the information and arguments
put forward by the State in its submission, the EPA withdrew its
December 30, 2019, proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13, 2018,
interstate transport SIP submission, and the EPA proposed disapproval
of Tennessee's submission. See 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022).
As described in section III.C. of this document, the EPA received
numerous comments on the 2016v2 modeling used in its proposed ozone
transport actions, including its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's
submission. The EPA incorporated this feedback and made several updates
to the 2016v2 inventories and model design to construct a 2016v3
emissions platform, which the EPA used to develop the 2016v3 air
quality modeling. The EPA used the 2016v3 modeling to support the final
action on 21 interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.96 97 The Agency also found there were additional
receptors that would struggle to attain or maintain the NAAQS in 2023,
which it identified as violating-monitor receptors. The final air
quality analysis modeling indicated that while Tennessee was no longer
projected in the modeling to be linked to any nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, the State was linked above 1 percent of the
NAAQS to five violating-monitor receptors, all located in Texas. See
2016v3 AQM TSD, at C-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Disapproval Action, 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\97\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the EPA identified a linkage between emissions in
Tennessee and violating-monitor receptors, in recognition that it had
not included such receptors in its proposed action, the EPA did not
take final action on Tennessee's transport SIP submission at that time.
The EPA is now withdrawing its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's
September 13, 2018, interstate transport SIP submission as published on
February 22, 2022, at 87 FR 9545.
B. EPA Evaluation
The EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee meet the states' obligations with respect to
Prong 1, prohibiting emissions that contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but do not meet
obligations with respect to Prong 2, interference with maintenance of
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. This proposal is based
on the EPA's evaluation of each State's SIP submission, considered in
light of the state-of-the-science 2016v3 modeling for 2023 and 2026,
the certified ozone monitoring data and design values for 2021 and
2022, and corresponding contribution analysis. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to partially approve with respect to Prong 1 and partially
disapprove with respect to Prong 2 the SIP submissions from Arizona,
New Mexico, and Tennessee.
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps 1 and
2
In Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission, the State cites the EPA modeling
released in the March 2018 memorandum to conclude that Arizona does not
contribute significantly (i.e., equal to or above the 0.70 ppb
threshold) to any nonattainment or maintenance receptor in another
state.\98\ In this proposal, the EPA relies on the Agency's 2016v3
modeling, which uses a more recent base year and more up-to-date
emissions inventories, compared to the modeling that was released in
the March 2018 memo. The 2016v3 modeling along with the violating-
monitor receptor methodology are used to identify downwind receptors,
calculate upwind contributions, and determine ``linkages'' to downwind
air quality problems in 2023 using the 0.70 ppb threshold (i.e., 1
percent of the NAAQS). As shown in Tables IV.B-1-3, the updated EPA
contribution modeling identifies Arizona's maximum contribution to a
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor to be greater than 1
percent of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the
entire technical basis for Arizona's determination with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its 2018 SIP Submission is that Arizona
is not linked at Step 2, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove
Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2, interference with
maintenance, based on the EPA's finding that such a linkage does exist
to maintenance-only receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP submission, 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for
Arizona
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed
air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to project
design values and contributions for 2023 and 2026. These data were
examined to determine if Arizona contributes at or above the threshold
of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. As shown in Table IV.B-1, the
data indicate that, in
[[Page 12686]]
2023, emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS to six maintenance-only receptors in Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Texas.\99\ Table IV.B.1-3 indicates that in 2023,
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS
to three violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in Nevada and New
Mexico. Furthermore, data for 2026 in Table IV.B.1-2 indicate that
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS to five maintenance-only receptors in Colorado and New
Mexico.\100\ In addition, Arizona's contribution exceeds 1 ppb at five
receptors in 2023 and two receptors in 2026. Thus, whether Arizona
could have sought to justify an alternative 1 ppb threshold is
irrelevant to EPA's determination that Arizona is linked, as Arizona's
contributions to receptors exceed even that higher alternative
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\100\ Id.
Table IV.B.1-1--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum Arizona
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/ design value design value contribution
maintenance (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011..................... Larimer, Maintenance- 70.9 72.1 0.86
Colorado. Only.
350130021.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 70.8 72.1 1.04
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350130022.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.7 72.4 1.06
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350151005.................... Eddy, New Maintenance- 69.7 74.1 1.34
Mexico. Only.
350250008.................... Lea, New Mexico Maintenance- 69.8 72.2 1.66
Only.
481410037.................... El Paso, Texas. Maintenance- 69.8 71.4 1.69
Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table IV.B.1-2--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2026 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 Average 2026 Maximum Arizona
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/ design value design value contribution
maintenance (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011..................... Larimer, Maintenance- 70.0 71.2 0.71
Colorado. Only.
350130021.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.9 71.2 0.82
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350130022.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.0 71.6 0.82
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350151005.................... Eddy, New Maintenance- 69.1 73.4 1.06
Mexico. Only.
350250008.................... Lea, New Mexico Maintenance- 69.2 71.6 1.34
Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table IV.B.1-3--Arizona 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
320030043................................. Clark, Nevada............... 73 75 74 74 0.77
350011012................................. Bernalillo, New Mexico...... 72 73 76 74 1.62
350130008................................. Do[ntilde]a Ana, New Mexico. 76 71 79 78 1.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information
submitted by Arizona, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA
proposes to find that Arizona is not linked to any nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Arizona is linked at Steps 1 and
2 to at least one, and in fact several, maintenance-only receptors,
based on the available analytical information, which includes the
modeling results from the 2016v3 platform and the violating-monitor
receptor analysis.
c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. The EPA recognizes that the modeling results released
with the March 2018 memorandum indicated Arizona would not contribute
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any downwind receptor. Arizona's
2018 SIP Submission therefore concluded that it was not necessary to
identify any emissions reductions or adopt any permanent and
enforceable controls to meet the good neighbor provision for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.\101\ Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission states that ``Arizona
believes that this SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air
emissions in Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
State in the future.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, 13-14.
\102\ Id at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as discussed previously in this section, the EPA's more
recent air quality analysis for 2023 and 2026
[[Page 12687]]
indicates that sources in Arizona are in fact contributing to downwind
air quality problems at several maintenance-only receptors. Based on
this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack justification, and the
EPA proposes to partially disapprove the submission.
d. Conclusion
For the reasons described in this section, the EPA proposes to
partially approve Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to partially disapprove Arizona's
SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
As noted earlier, NMED and EHD first relied on the modeling
information from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum which used a 2011 base
period with 2011 meteorology to identify nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and upwind-state contribution levels at those receptors. NMED
and EHD acknowledged that this modeling showed a linkage to one
nonattainment and one maintenance-only receptor in the Denver area at
or above 0.70 ppb. Since the time of the State's submission, the EPA
updated the modeling to a 2016 base period with 2016 meteorology and
updated emissions data to produce new 2023 model projections and
released this new modeling in 2022 (commonly referred to as 2016v2
modeling platform). As explained in section III.C. of this document, in
response to comments, the EPA further refined its modeling in the
2016v3 modeling platform, issued in 2023.\103\ Under both the EPA's
2011-based modeling included in the March 2018 memorandum that New
Mexico relied upon in their SIP submission and the EPA's updated 2016v3
modeling, there are receptors identified, to which New Mexico is linked
above 1 percent of the NAAQS, as described in the next section.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
R08-OAR-2023-0375.
\104\ The 2011 modeling relied on by NMED and EHD in the SIP
submission identified linkages to one nonattainment receptor, the
Rocky Flats-N receptor, and the one maintenance receptor, the Weld
County Tower receptor, in 2023. See NMED SIP Submission at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
As in Step 1, NMED and EHD relied upon the modeling released in the
EPA's March 2018 memo, and in its July 2023 letter, NMED relied on the
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results to analyze projected contributions to
downwind receptors. As explained in section IV.A.2. of this document,
while NMED and EHD acknowledge the EPA's modeling results identifying a
contribution greater than 0.70 ppb, the agencies do not find it
appropriate to rely on a particular threshold (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at Step
2 to determine whether a State is linked (or significantly
contributing) to a downwind receptor in the West, but instead they rely
on a weight of evidence approach. NMED and EHD point to the EPA's past
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone good neighbor SIP submission, in which
the EPA approved Arizona's SIP based on an evaluation of receptors in
California to support the use of a weight of evidence approach in
evaluating interstate transport and claim that the EPA determined a
weight of evidence approach to be an appropriate evaluation to apply in
the West.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ NMED SIP submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NMED and EHD's approach to evaluating whether an upwind
State is linked to a downwind receptor differs from the EPA's broadly
applied 4-step interstate transport framework by relying instead on a
``weight of evidence'' approach, here, we evaluate that ``weight of
evidence'' methodology NMED has chosen to apply. While the NMED and EHD
submission does not claim to establish a linkage, and instead
postulates that it is inappropriate to apply a uniform standard to
determine whether a State's contributions should be further evaluated
in Step 3, the submission does rely on a 1 percent threshold to
identify which receptors to apply a weight of evidence analysis.
Therefore, while the NMED and EHD submission seems to disagree in
principle with the use of a single threshold at Step 2, they have
effectively moved to apply the same threshold for the same purpose the
EPA would do at Step 2--rely on a 1 percent threshold to identify
receptors to which a State is linked and therefore require further
evaluation at Step 3 to determine whether any of the State's
contributions, if any, are significant.
While the EPA does not disagree with the methodology NMED and EHD
used in the submission to identify receptors where the State is linked,
the EPA continues to find its 4-step interstate transport framework to
be an appropriate and nationally consistent approach to evaluating
interstate transport, including the application of a contribution
threshold at Step 2 of the framework. As stated in the EPA's final SIP
disapproval action, the EPA disagrees with the NMED and EHD submission
that neither its nationwide photochemical grid modeling nor the 4-step
interstate transport framework for ozone can generally be applied to
states in the western region of the U.S., including contributions from
sources in New Mexico, and has maintained that position consistently
throughout numerous actions.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ For a discussion of this history, see for example 87 FR
31480-81 (proposed disapproval of Utah SIP submission) and 87 FR
31453-56 (proposed disapproval of California SIP submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NMED and EHD submission cites the EPA's action on Arizona's
2008 ozone good neighbor SIP as evidence that the EPA relied on a
weight of evidence approach when evaluating interstate transport in the
West. In that action, the EPA considered the collective contribution
from upwind states to monitoring sites in California as part of the
basis for approval of the State's submission, despite linkages over 1
percent from Arizona to a select few California monitoring sites. The
EPA disagrees that New Mexico's contribution to Colorado is comparable
to the situation addressed in the Arizona 2008 ozone good neighbor
action. The facts that supported the EPA's conclusion on Arizona's 2008
ozone good neighbor SIP were unique; in the Disapproval action and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA has already explained that it
rejects that a comparable consideration is relevant for receptors in
Colorado, which the EPA has consistently found are impacted by the
collective contribution of numerous upwind states at levels that well
exceed the circumstances of the California sites. See 88 FR at 9378-79
(western State policy generally); id. at 9360 (rejecting similar
arguments in disapproving SIP submission from Utah); see also Response
To Comments Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, at 236-237. At times the
EPA has found it appropriate to examine more closely discreet issues
for some western states; \107\ however, the EPA has consistently
applied the 4-step interstate transport framework in western states, as
it proposes to do in this action, and
[[Page 12688]]
has previously identified ozone transport problems in the West,
including in Colorado, that are similar to those in the east.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See, e.g., 87 FR 61249, 61254-55 (October 11, 2022) (in
approving Colorado's interstate transport SIP for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, analyzing unique issues associated with wintertime inversion
conditions in certain western areas).
\108\ See, e.g., 87 FR 31443, 31453-57 (May 24, 2022); 83 FR
65093, 65094 (December 19, 2018); 82 FR 9155, 9157 (February 3,
2017); 82 FR 9142, 9149-50 (February 3, 2017); 81 FR 74504, 74523
(October 26, 2016); 81 FR 71991, 71993-95 (October 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico claims that the Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N
receptors are impacted by the same magnitude of contributions from
interstate transport as the California receptors were in the approval
of the Arizona transport SIP submission. This, however, is not
represented in the data presented in NMED and EHD's submittals. Total
upwind contributions were 10 percent and 8 percent of the projected
2023 design values at the Rocky Flats-N and Weld County Tower
receptors, respectively, and five states were determined to be linked
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS. The results show that the upwind
contributions to Colorado are significantly greater than the upwind
contributions to the monitors evaluated in California when taking
action on Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP submission, where the total
contribution from all upwind states was 2.5 percent and 4.4 percent of
the total ozone concentration at the two monitoring sites in California
to which Arizona contributed greater than 1 percent.
The determination made to remove the identified California
receptors from the Step 1 analysis, done in the context of the less
protective 2008 ozone NAAQS, was a narrow circumstance that does not
apply in the vast majority of receptors outside of California. The data
presented by New Mexico suggests the circumstances that led the EPA to
remove California receptors from Step 1 do not apply to receptors in
Colorado. In previous rulemakings, for example, the EPA has, in fact,
determined that receptors in Colorado are heavily impacted by upwind-
state contribution. See, e.g., 82 FR 9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81 FR 71991
(October 19, 2016). The EPA affirms, contrary to NMED's assertion, that
the Colorado receptors that NMED analyzed are impacted by upwind State
contributions.\109\ In fact, nowhere outside California do we project
that there will be receptors having such a low total upwind
contribution as is the case for California.\110\ Further, at the El
Paso UTEP receptor (Monitor ID: 481410037) which, as shown in Table
IV.B.2-1, is the receptor to which emissions from sources in New Mexico
are linked, there are 2 states linked above 1 percent of the standard
and 6 percent of the ozone design values is due to the collective
contribution from upwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\110\ See 88 FR at 36718 regarding contribution to certain
monitoring sites in California and its relation to the EPA's
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS transport SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for New
Mexico
As described in section I. of this document, the EPA has performed
updated air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to
project design values and contributions for 2023. These data were
examined to determine if the newer modeling also indicated that New
Mexico contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. As shown in IV.B.2-1, the data \111\ indicates that in 2023,
emissions from New Mexico contribute greater than 1 percent of the
standard to a maintenance-only receptor in El Paso, Texas.\112\ New
Mexico is not linked to any violating-monitor receptors in 2023. Based
on the 2016v3 modeling, the average and maximum design values for the
El Paso monitor in 2026 are below the level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In
this regard, New Mexico is not projected to be linked to any receptors
in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring
sites nationwide are provide in the file:'' 2016v3_Final
FIP_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx'' which is included in docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\112\ These modeling results are consistent with the results of
a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 2016v1 emissions platform
which became available to the public in the fall of 2020 in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as noted in section I. of this document. That
modeling showed that New Mexico had a maximum contribution greater
than 0.70 ppb to at least one nonattainment or maintenance-only
receptor in 2023. These modeling results are included in the file
``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx''
in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
Table IV.B.2-1--New Mexico Linkage Results Based on the EPA's Updated 2016v3 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum New Mexico
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance design value design value contribution
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481410037.................................. El Paso, TX................. Maintenance................. 69.8 71.4 1.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information
submitted by NMED and EHD, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA
proposes to find that New Mexico is not linked to a nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that New Mexico is linked at Steps 1
and 2 to a maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Therefore, the EPA will
proceed to evaluate NMED and EHD's SIP submission at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework as it pertains to Prong 2,
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. NMED and EHD's initial SIP submission did not conduct
an analysis of emissions control opportunities within the state,
applying either the EPA's multifactor analysis at Step 3 or using any
other framework of analysis. Instead, the submission presents a three-
part ``weight of evidence'' analysis to determine no reductions are
needed beyond existing emissions reductions efforts to satisfy the
State's obligations with regards to the good neighbor provision.
NMED's July 2023 letter uses mass-based emissions reductions
identified on an ozone-season wide basis derived from the Step 3 (and
Step 4 analysis for EGUs) completed by the EPA in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan to identify the magnitude of emissions that NMED assumes
constitutes the identification of ``significant contribution'' that
must be eliminated to address the State's good
[[Page 12689]]
neighbor obligations. NMED's letter asserts that certain compliance
orders entered in recent years would achieve an equivalent or greater
amount of NOX emissions reduction (on a mass-basis) than the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is projected to require from EGUs in New
Mexico.
In this section, we evaluate the State's weight of evidence
analysis submitted in the SIP submission, and then in the following
section (Section IV.B.2.e of this document) address the argument put
forward by NMED in the July 2023 letter.
As summarized in section IV.A.2. of this document, NMED and EHD's
weight of evidence consisted of three parts, (1) a comparison of in-
state emissions contributions and out-of-state contributions to the
receptors with linkages from New Mexico, (2) consideration of
topography and airflow associated with local ozone formation in the
Denver area, and (3) an evaluation of trends in emissions and ozone
concentrations at receptors with linkages and western states.
Regarding the first weight of evidence comparing in-state and out
of State emissions, the EPA disagrees that these factors are sufficient
to establish that New Mexico's emissions do not significantly
contribute to receptors in any other state. While NMED and EHD point to
a relatively higher level of contributions from non-anthropogenic,
local, or international contributions in the West as reason for
evaluating interstate transport differently in the West, a State is not
excused from eliminating its significant contribution due to
contributions from these sources, where the data show that
anthropogenic emissions from upwind states also contribute to
identified receptors at levels that indicate an interstate contribution
problem as well. As stated in section V.C.2. of the EPA's final SIP
Disapproval action, a State is not excused from eliminating its
significant contribution on the basis that international emissions also
contribute some amount of pollution to the same receptors to which the
State is linked. This same principle applies broadly to other arguments
as to which emissions are the ``cause'' of the problem; the good
neighbor provision established a contribution standard, not a ``but-
for'' causation standard. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323-25. The EPA's
position on this issue is established in the SIP Disapproval action.
See 88 FR at 9378 (rejecting this argument as to international
contribution); Disapproval action RTC at 455-58 (rejecting this
argument as to in-state contribution); id. at 459-62 (rejecting this
argument as to non-anthropogenic contribution). Nor did New Mexico
offer a test or standard by which these considerations could be applied
on a principled basis to establish when, if they were relevant
considerations, they would justify a different approach for any
particular state. New Mexico only argued that these considerations
should excuse its own obligations.
The submission's second weight of evidence factor considers the
Denver area's topography and air flow direction. The EPA has evaluated
the information in the submission and proposes to determine that this
evidence does not provide sufficient reason to support NMED and EHD
submission's conclusion that the contributions from New Mexico to the
receptors identified by the EPA's modeling is not significant. The NMED
and EHD submission claims that the EPA had concluded that geographical
features (mountains, etc.) in and around the Denver NAA ``magnify and
constrain the influence of local emissions on air quality'' and ozone
production by citing the EPA's description of the region in the EPA's
designation of the Denver NAA for the 2015 ozone standard.
The EPA evaluated this argument thoroughly in the SIP Disapproval
action. The EPA explained, despite the local geographical features in
and around the Denver NAA substantial portion of the transport problem
at these receptors, on the order of 6-10 percent (depending on
individual receptor and modeling version used) is the result of
transport from states outside of Colorado. The EPA evaluated the
performance of its 2016v3 modeling in all areas of the country,
including in Colorado and in the southwest (where New Mexico is linked
to an El Paso receptor), and the Agency found the modeling performed
within parameters and is reliable for use to inform determinations of
contribution, even in areas of unique western topography. See RTC 171-
184. These same findings hold true for New Mexico's linkage, whether
assessed in relation to its contribution to Colorado receptors in the
2011-based modeling, or in the linkage to El Paso found in 2016v3
modeling.
The third weight of evidence provided in the SIP consists of
monitoring data and emissions data to justify their conclusion that no
additional emissions reductions would be necessary to satisfy New
Mexico's ozone transport obligations.
The NMED and EHD submission points to a projected downward trend of
ozone levels at monitors within the Colorado nonattainment area from
2008 to 2018, and VOC and NOX emissions reductions from 2002
to 2014 in states contributing above 1 percent of the NAAQS to the Weld
County or Rocky Flats-N receptors. The submission did not quantify the
total anticipated reductions in NOX and VOC emissions from
New Mexico's existing regulatory requirements nor did it evaluate the
impact of those reductions in downwind air quality at the Denver area
receptors to which New Mexico was projected to be linked in the 2011-
based modeling. In general, the air quality modeling that the EPA has
conducted already accounts for ``on-the-books'' emissions control
measures, including the expected reductions those measures achieve
through 2023. The 2016v3 modeling, which contains updated emissions
inventories for New Mexico and other states, established a continued
linkage from New Mexico to at least one downwind receptor in 2023 at
Steps 1 and 2, despite emissions control efforts in the State.\113\
Applying the submission's same logic in this weight of evidence to the
linkage identified in the EPA's 2016v3 modeling, the El Paso County,
Texas, receptor, the EPA identifies a similar flaw. Because a linkage
continues to occur under projected baseline emissions levels, the next
analytical step would be to conduct an analysis of emissions control
opportunities in the State to determine what, if any, emissions may
constitute ``significant contribution'' and therefore should be
prohibited. The EPA explained in the SIP Disapproval action that an
alternative approach of simply relying on emissions trends data,
without including those claimed reductions as enforceable control
measures within a SIP, is insufficient. 88 FR at 9354, 9356, 9378-79;
Response To Comments at 329-33. Similarly, emissions trends do not
themselves provide a principled basis for determining what ``amount''
of emissions constitutes ``significant contribution.'' See 88 FR at
9375-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ As the EPA explained in the final SIP Disapproval action,
the EPA views changes in linkages between 2011-based meteorology and
2016-based meteorology not as an indication of uncertainty in
whether a State is linked at Step 2 but rather as confirmation that
the State's emissions are substantial enough to generate linkages
under alternative meteorological data sets. As such, the changes in
linkage observed between the 2011-based and 2016v3 modeling for New
Mexico does not alter the EPA's findings or justify a less rigorous
analysis at Step 3--just as the EPA found for many other states in
connection with the Disapproval action. See 88 FR at 9367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this evaluation of the weight of evidence analysis
provided in NMED and EHD's SIP submission, the EPA finds that the
analysis is insufficient to support the conclusion that the State
[[Page 12690]]
does not interfere with maintenance at receptors in other states. The
EPA's updated air quality analysis indicates New Mexico is not linked
to any nonattainment receptors but is linked to a maintenance-only
receptor in El Paso, Texas. Thus, the EPA proposes partial disapproval
of New Mexico's submission with respect to Prong 2.
e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
The EPA has considered the additional information New Mexico
provided in its July 2023 letter. At the outset, we note that this
letter did not undergo the requisite public rulemaking process at the
State level, so the EPA does not consider it to be either a SIP
submission itself or a supplement to New Mexico's existing submission.
See CAA section 110(a)(1), (2) (requiring public notice and hearing
requirements before SIP revisions may be submitted to EPA); id CAA
section 110(i) (prohibiting modifications of SIP requirements except as
conducted pursuant to mandated SIP revision procedures); id. CAA
section 110(l) (mandating analysis of all SIP revisions to ensure such
revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirements under the
Act). See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart F (setting forth minimum
procedural requirements for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of
implementation plans, including requirements of public notice and
hearing); id. Appendix V, section 2 (setting forth administrative
completeness criteria for State plan submissions including evidence of
compliance with procedural requirements). However, the letter was
provided to the EPA prior to this proposed document and the EPA has had
time to consider its contents; the EPA in its discretion will provide
its views on the relevance of the information contained in the letter.
In the letter, NMED explains that it believes the emissions
reductions required under certain compliance orders in New Mexico
applicable to several identified facilities will achieve greater
emissions reductions than what would be achieved for New Mexico's EGU
sources if those sources were subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. NMED asserts that the EPA identified in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan that the control requirements for EGUs would achieve roughly 30
tons of ozone season NOX emissions reductions on an annual
basis through the strategies of SCR and SNCR optimization and upgrade
of combustion control requirements at qualifying EGUs. In the letter,
NMED identified 236 tons of already established annual NOX
emissions reductions due to two compliance orders lodged in 2021 that
it claims had not been reflected in the EPA's 2016v3 emissions
platform, and an additional 77 tons of emissions reductions across 3
years from a consent decree with Matador Production Company.\114\
According to NMED, because these reductions are greater than the
reductions that would be achieved under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
there is no need to issue a FIP for New Mexico, since these other
measures have already eliminated a greater mass-based quantity of
emissions than the EPA found needed to eliminate significant
contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ NMED's July 5, 2023 letter, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges and applauds the efforts to enforce air
pollution control requirements and the reductions in ozone-precursor
emissions that are claimed to be achieved under these orders. However,
the information in this letter does not lead the EPA to a different
conclusion with respect to the approvability of New Mexico's interstate
transport SIP submission. In addition to the fact that the letter is
not a formal SIP submission, the EPA does not believe the information
contained in the letter (even if it were a SIP submission) is
sufficient to allow the EPA to conclude that New Mexico would satisfy
its obligations to eliminate significant contribution either at Step 2
or Step 3. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to further discuss with New
Mexico the content of a future SIP revision that would satisfy these
obligations.
Regarding the existence of a linkage at Step 2, although the letter
asserts these reductions are additional to those reflected in the
emissions inventories used in the 2016v3 modeling, this conclusion is
not clearly supported. The emissions inventories used in the modeling
reflected a specific methodology for calculating and projecting ozone-
precursor emissions from the oil and gas sector in New Mexico and
particularly in the Permian Basin. See Disapproval Action RTC at 117.
The reductions that may be achieved at the particular facilities under
compliance orders New Mexico cites do not necessarily establish that
those emissions projections, including growth factors, used in the
EPA's modeling for the oil and gas sector are unreliable. (In this
regard, the EPA does not view the information in the letter as
undercutting its determinations at Steps 1 and 2.)
Briefly, some additional concerns that the EPA has identified with
the approach suggested in New Mexico's letter include: (1) all new
NOX emissions reduction measures would need to be adopted
into the SIP; \115\ (2) any assessment of emissions reductions would
likely need to be in terms of the ozone season of May 1 through
September 30 rather than annual reductions and would need to be
established consistent with a relevant baseline date and compliance
date; \116\ and (3) the approach would need to account for the impact
of not placing additional NOX limitations on EGU sources in
determining the amount of NOX emissions that New Mexico's
SIP needs to reduce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The EPA made this requirement clear in its SIP Disapproval
action. See 88 FR at 9343, 9376. In its letter, NMED has not
indicated its intent to incorporate these orders and the
commensurate NOX emissions reductions into their SIP.
\116\ As such, the information in NMED's letter is inadequate to
establish that these orders achieve an equivalent amount of
emissions reduction to eliminate significant contribution as the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan would in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes that states may replace a FIP with a SIP and
the emissions controls in that SIP may differ from those the EPA
selected in its FIP. See section VI.C. of this document. However, the
mere existence of the compliance orders identified by NMED does not
substitute for a Step 3 analysis and is insufficient in itself to
support a conclusion that New Mexico has resolved its good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Though there is not a single,
prescribed method for how a State may conduct a Step 3 analysis, the
EPA has consistently applied Step 3 of the good neighbor framework for
ozone through a far more comprehensive evaluation of potential
additional control technologies or measures, on industry-wide bases,
than what New Mexico provided in its submission. Identifying various
emissions control measures at specific units that have been enacted at
the State level, is not analytically sufficient. And as explained
above, the EPA has identified several additional concerns. First, as a
replacement for the emissions control strategy that the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan would implement at Step 4 in New Mexico, the letter is
insufficient to demonstrate equivalence. Second, as noted above, these
measures have not been included as a revision to New Mexico's SIP and
submitted for EPA's approval.
f. Conclusion
The EPA is proposing to find that the portion of NMED's July 27,
2021 and EHD's June 9, 2021, SIP submission addressing Prong 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with
[[Page 12691]]
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, does not meet the State's
interstate transport obligations, because it fails to contain the
necessary provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the EPA proposes to partially approve these submissions with respect to
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant
contribution to nonattainment.'' The EPA in its discretion has
considered the information in NMED's July 2023 letter but for the
reasons explained in section IV.B.2.d. of this document, finds this
information would not alter its conclusions as to New Mexico.
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 1
At Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee
relied on the EPA's 2011-based modeling included in the March 2018
memorandum to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2023.
As described previously in section III.C. of this document, the EPA has
updated this modeling (2016v3) using the most current and technically
appropriate information and has used that information, along with its
violating-monitor receptor identification methodology, to determine the
final good neighbor obligations for 23 other states. To ensure parity
among states, the EPA proposes to rely on this air quality analysis to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 2023 analytic
year.
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 2
At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee
relied on the 2011-based modeling released in the March 2018 memorandum
to identify upwind State linkages to nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023. As described in section III.C. of this document, the
EPA has updated its air quality analytics (2016v3 modeling coupled with
monitoring data to inform identification of violating-monitor
receptors) to identify upwind State contributions to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in 2023. In this proposal, to ensure parity among
states, the EPA relies on this set of analytics to identify upwind
contributions (``linkages'') to downwind air quality problems in the
2023 analytic year using a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS. See
section III.D.3. of this document for explanation of the use of 1
percent of the NAAQS. This set of analytical data establishes that
Tennessee is linked to violating-monitor receptors in 2023 in Dallas
County, TX. as shown in Table IV.B.3-1, Tennessee's maximum
contribution to a violating-monitor receptor is 0.86 ppb which is
greater than 1 percent of the ozone standard (i.e., 0.70 ppb).
Therefore, Tennessee is linked to a downwind air quality problem at
Steps 1 and 2. Because the entire technical basis for Tennessee's
submission is that the State is not linked at Step 2, but the state-of-
the-science analytics used to address all other states' obligations
establishes that this is not correct, the EPA proposes to partially
disapprove Tennessee's SIP submission based on the EPA's finding that
Tennesse contributes above the threshold to at least one maintenance-
only receptor in another state.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ To the extent the Tennessee submittal included information
regarding emissions controls that could be interpreted as relevant
to a Step 3 analysis, the EPA evaluates that information in Section
IV.C.3.d of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's air quality analytics indicate that Tennessee is not
linked to any model-projected nonattainment receptors above 1 percent
of the NAAQS. As a result, no further evaluation of the State's
emissions (i.e., multifactor analysis, including air quality and cost
considerations emissions analysis) are required with respect to Prong 1
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. This comports with the
State's conclusions with regards to Prong 1, and therefore, the EPA
proposes to partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission regarding
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant
contribution to nonattainment.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Tennessee's largest impact on any modeled-projected
downwind nonattainment and maintenance-only receptor are 0.60 ppb
and 0.68 ppb, respectively. These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee references a 1 ppb threshold in its submission, citing
the EPA's Significant Impact Level (SIL) Guidance as justification for
the use of a 1 ppb threshold. The EPA explained in the final SIP
Disapproval action that the SIL Guidance cannot be relied upon to
justify an alternative threshold at Step 2 of the interstate transport
framework for ozone. See 88 FR at 9372. The Agency is adopting that
same position in relation to Tennessee's attempted reliance.
c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for
Tennessee
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed
updated air quality modeling (2016v3) to project design values and
contributions for 2023. These data were examined to determine if
Tennessee contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance-only receptor. Based on the EPA's modeling results,
Tennessee is not linked to a model-identified nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in 2023 or 2026. However, as shown in Table
IV.B.3-1, the data \119\ indicates that in 2023, emissions from
Tennessee contribute greater than 1 percent of the standard to five
violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in the Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington, Texas Core Based Statistical Area.120 121
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\120\ The EPA developed the violating-monitor approach in
response to comments on the 2016v2 modeling received on the proposed
Disapproval action and FIP. In this regard, EPA did not identify
violating-monitors in the contribution data associated with the
2016v1 and 2016v3 modeling.
\121\ As noted in section III.D.2. of this document, a
violating-monitor receptor is not projected to have a maximum
projected design value of 71 ppb or greater in 2023 based on the
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results. Therefore, the receptors identified
in Table IV.B.3-1 have both average and maximum projected design
values below 70 ppb.
Table IV.B.3-1--Tennessee Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high Contribution
Receptor ID Location value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481130075................................. Dallas County, TX........... 71 71 73 72 0.86
481211032................................. Denton County, TX........... 76 77 85 77 0.77
484392003................................. Tarrant County, TX.......... 72 72 74 72 0.74
480850005................................. Collin County, TX........... 75 74 81 73 0.74
484390075................................. Tarrant County, TX.......... 75 76 76 77 0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12692]]
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information in
Tennessee's SIP submission considering the modeling results for 2023
and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform and monitoring data used
to inform the identification of violating-monitor receptors, the EPA
proposes to find that Tennesse is not linked to a nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Tennessee is linked at Steps 1
and 2 to at least one maintenance-only receptor in another state.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tennessee Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. Tennessee did not conduct a Step 3 analysis in its SIP
submission because at the time, the EPA's modeling indicated the State
was not linked above 1 percent of the NAAQS to a projected downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. However, based on the EPA's
updated air quality analytics, which the EPA has used to make final
determinations for all other states, the State is currently linked to
at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-only receptor. To
ensure consistency and equity across all states in addressing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is evaluating
the SIP submission in the context of this same set of air quality
analytics. Tennessee's SIP submission does not analyze total ozone
precursors that continue to be emitted from sources and other emissions
activity within the State, evaluate the emissions reduction potential
of any additional controls using cost or other metrics, nor evaluate
any resulting downwind air quality improvements that could result from
such controls. Instead, Tennessee's submission includes a list of
existing emissions control programs and measures in the State. However,
the EPA's modeling already takes account of such measures. Despite
these existing emissions controls, the State is linked above 1 percent
of the NAAQS to at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptor.
Based on this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack
justification. Thus, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove
Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
e. Conclusion
The EPA proposes to partially disapprove the State's SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2 regarding ``interference with maintenance'' of
the good neighbor provision. Additionally, the EPA proposes to
partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of
the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant contribution to
nonattainment.''
C. Proposed SIP Action
The EPA is proposing to partially disapprove the portions of SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to
interstate transport of air pollution that will interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Under CAA
section 110(c)(1), disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for
the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to interference with maintenance of the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do in this
action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets these
requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not start
a mandatory sanctions clock. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
partially approve the portions of SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to interstate transport of air
pollution that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states.
As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions
reductions that are required for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to
satisfy their good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
analysis on which the EPA proposes this conclusion for these three
states is the same, nationally consistent analytical framework on which
the Agency proposes FIP action for Kansas and Iowa in this proposed
action (see section V.A. of this document), as well as for the 23
states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for this Action
A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP Submissions From
Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP Authority for Iowa and
Kansas
In 2022, the EPA approved infrastructure SIP submissions from Iowa
and Kansas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which in part addressed the good
neighbor provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\122\ The EPA
concluded that, based on the 2016v2 modeling, which was the latest
modeling results available at the time the EPA took action, the largest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
from each of these states was less than 1 percent of the NAAQS.\123\ As
a result, the EPA found that neither Iowa nor Kansas would
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in any other state.\124\ Therefore, the EPA approved the portion of
each State's infrastructure SIP submission that addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4,
2022) (Kansas).
\123\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document 2015
Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP Proposed Actions'', available in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\124\ Id. at 17. Based on the 2023 modeling from the Proposed
AQM TSD, Iowa was expected in 2023 to have a 0.64 ppb impact on a
potential nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site
ID 550590019) and a 0.58 ppb impact at a potential maintenance
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310032). Kansas was
expected in 2023 to have a 0.49 ppb impact on a potential
nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site ID
550590019) and a 0.060 ppb impact at a potential maintenance
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the release of the 2016v2-based modeling and EPA's
approval of Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP
submission, the EPA performed updated modeling in response to comments
received on other good neighbor proposals in 2022, as described in
section III.C. of this document. Additionally, as described in section
III.D.2. of this document, the EPA updated its definition of a
maintenance receptor in recognition of comments and other information
highlighting measured ozone levels continuing to exceed the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at many monitoring sites throughout the country. The approach
adopted in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan now takes into greater
consideration monitoring data to determine whether a violating
monitoring site will struggle to maintain
[[Page 12693]]
the NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year. The EPA used this new, unified set
of air quality analytics to inform its determinations of the
obligations of all other states. Iowa and Kansas have SIP approvals in
place that are inconsistent with that common set of information used
for other states, including those states that are linked to the same
receptors to which Iowa and Kansas are now shown to be linked in 2023.
As such, the approvals were in error under CAA section 110(k)(6).
Based on this updated air quality modeling and considering
contributions to violating-monitor receptors, both Iowa and Kansas are
now projected to contribute more than 1 percent of the NAAQS to
downwind receptors. Specifically, as shown in Table V.A-1, Iowa is
projected to contribute 0.90 ppb to a maintenance-only receptor in Cook
County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001) and 0.70 ppb to a maintenance-only
receptor in Kenosha, Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019) in the 2023 analytic
year. As shown in Table V.A-2, Iowa is also linked to three violating-
monitor receptors at locations in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in
the 2023 analytic year.
Table V.A-1--Iowa Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum Iowa
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance design value design value contribution
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170310001.................................. Cook, Illinois.............. Maintenance-Only............ 68.2 71.9 0.90
550590019.................................. Kenosha, Wisconsin.......... Maintenance-Only............ 70.8 71.7 0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD
Table V.A-2--Iowa 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003.................................. Allegan, Michigan.......... 75 75 78 73 1.13
170310032.................................. Cook, Illinois............. 75 75 77 72 0.79
550590025.................................. Kenosha, Wisconsin......... 72 73 72 71 0.71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table V.A-3 shows that Kansas is projected to contribute 0.82 ppb
to the violating-monitor receptor in Allegan, MI (Site ID 260050003) in
the 2023 analytic year.
Table V.A-3--Kansas 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003.................................. Allegan, Michigan.......... 75 75 78 73 0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Iowa and Kansas are not projected to be linked above 1 percent of
the NAAQS to receptors in the 2026 analytic year. The reasons for the
changes in linkages in the 2016v3 modeling for Iowa are driven by a
combination of factors. The EPA explained in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan that the 2016v3 modeling contains several changes to improve its
performance from the 2016v2 modeling, particularly in recognition of an
apparent under-prediction problem particularly in the Upper Midwest. 88
FR at 36697; see also 88 FR at 9344-45. The EPA made changes to better
incorporate the effects of biogenic emissions sources, lightning, and
international/boundary conditions on ozone levels, and observed an
improvement from a 19 percent underprediction to a 6.9 percent under
prediction in the Upper Midwest. Id. The EPA also updated its
anthropogenic-source emissions inventory data for all states, including
Iowa and Kansas. Id. At 36698. The change in linkages for Kansas is
attributable to the development of the violating-monitor receptor
methodology for identifying additional maintenance-only receptors,
coupled with updated calculations of contribution levels derived from
the updated 2016v3 modeling.
The same air quality monitoring data and modeling used to analyze
the analytic years 2023 and 2026 has been used in taking final action
to define the obligations of 23 states already covered in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. As explained in section I.A. of this document, the
Agency finds it both reasonable--and necessary to ensuring consistency
and equity across all states--to use this same analytical information
to address the obligations of all states. These data are state-of-the-
science regarding air quality conditions and contribution levels in
2023 and 2026, reflecting improvements in the EPA's understanding from
the 2016v2 modeling and incorporating the input of many outside parties
through their public comments during the rulemaking process. Using
these data, methodological choices, and analytical findings, the EPA
has determined that Kansas and Iowa each contribute to at least one
maintenance receptor greater than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that its approval of each
State's 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission, with regard
only to the portion addressing Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision
[[Page 12694]]
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), was in error.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority,
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining
that those actions were in error.\125\ The EPA's state-of-the-science
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan demonstrates that the
EPA's prior conclusions that Iowa and Kansas will not interfere with
maintenance in any other State in the 2023 analytic year was incorrect,
which means that the EPA's approvals of Iowa's and Kansas' good
neighbor SIP submissions were in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See, e.g., 86 FR 23054, 23068 (error correcting prior
approval of Kentucky's transport SIP submission for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to a disapproval and simultaneously promulgating FIP on the
basis of the Wisconsin and New York decisions remanding CSAPR Update
and vacating CSAPR Close-Out and new information establishing
Kentucky was linked to downwind receptors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency's use of error-correction authority in this instance is
well-rooted in the statute and case law and is consistent with the
EPA's longstanding practice and policy of addressing states' good
neighbor obligations using state-of-the-science air quality analysis in
a consistent manner across all states.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides the EPA with the authority to
make corrections to actions on CAA implementation plans that are
subsequently found to be in error. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA,
790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) (110(k)(6) is a ``broad provision''
enacted to provide the EPA with an avenue to correct errors). The key
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6) are that the Administrator has the
authority to ``determine'' that the approval or promulgation of a plan
was ``in error,'' and when the Administrator so determines, he may then
revise the action ``as appropriate,'' in the same manner as the prior
action.\126\ Moreover, CAA section 110(k)(6) ``confers discretion on
the EPA to decide if and when it will invoke the statute to revise a
prior action.'' 790 F.3d at 948 (CAA section 110(k)(6) grants the ``EPA
the discretion to decide when to act pursuant to that provision'').
While CAA section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to
correct its own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other
provision in the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, the EPA
concludes that the term should be given its plain language, everyday
meaning, which includes all unintentional, incorrect, or wrong actions
or mistakes.\127\ Under CAA section 110(k)(6), the EPA must make an
error determination and provide ``the basis thereof.'' There is no
indication that this is a substantial burden for the Agency to meet. To
the contrary, the requirement is met if the EPA clearly articulates the
error and its basis. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d at
948; see also 85 FR 73636, 73638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 85 FR 73636, 73637 (November 19, 2020).
\127\ See 85 FR at 73637-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, the EPA proposes to determine that it made an error
in approving Kansas' and Iowa's good neighbor SIP submittals. The EPA
based its prior approvals on the conclusion that these states would not
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors in 2023, using
modeling information that has since been updated to incorporate public
comment and better information, is no longer considered state-of-the-
science, and produces a different result for these states, one which is
inconsistent with the set of air quality analysis used to inform the
EPA's evaluation of all other states. See 88 FR 9344-45, 9349-50
(explaining updates to improve model performance and account for recent
monitored ozone levels in response to public comments). Had the EPA
known of this information regarding the 2023 analytic year reflected in
the 2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor receptor identification
methodology at the time it issued those approvals, it would not have
approved Kansas or Iowa's submissions. Under the plain meaning of the
word ``error,'' those approvals were in error and are in need of
correction.
Application of the final air quality analysis and contribution
information from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in this manner is
consistent with longstanding EPA practice and policy under the good
neighbor provision. The EPA explained in the Disapproval action its
view that use of updated information to inform its action on the states
included in the Disapproval action was not prejudicial, in part
because, had the Agency approved any of those states based on modeling
that had been superseded by more recent and reliable information, it
would exercise error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6)
as it had done in the past, to convert those approvals to disapprovals
(as it is now doing here). See 88 FR at 9364. The EPA explained that
this would be consistent with prior error-correction actions it has
taken or proposed under the good neighbor provision. See id. (citing 86
FR 23056, 23067-68 (April 30, 2021) (error correcting Kentucky's
approval to a disapproval and promulgating FIP addressing Kentucky's
outstanding 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor obligations); 87 FR 20036,
20041 (April 6, 2022) (proposing error correction for Delaware's 2015
ozone NAAQS SIP approval to a disapproval based on updated air quality
modeling)). Similarly, in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA issued
error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6) authority for 22 states
where the EPA had issued approvals of SIPs adopted under the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), following the D.C. Circuit's decision in North
Carolina that CAIR's ``emissions budgets were insufficiently related to
the statutory mandate'' of the good neighbor provision. See 76 FR
48208, 48220-22 (Aug. 8, 2011). The D.C. Circuit upheld this exercise
of error-correction authority in EME Homer City, 795 F.3d 118, 132-35
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
The 22 error corrections in the original CSAPR and for Kentucky in
the Revised CSAPR Update were prompted by judicial decisions that
invalidated the reasoning that the EPA had used to support the
approvals. In those circumstances, a change in the law occurring
subsequent to the time of the EPA's original action on the SIPs, and
which the EPA could not have been aware of at the time that it took
such action, justified the use of error-correction authority. Likewise,
a change in the EPA's understanding of the relevant facts, even if that
understanding could not have been known at the time of the EPA's
original action, may equally justify the exercise of error-correction
authority.\128\ The EPA does not read the statute to only authorize the
use of error correction authority under 110(k)(6) when a judicial
decision or other change in legal view or interpretation has been
brought to light. This would read into the statute a term that is not
there, namely, that the EPA can only exercise CAA section 110(k)(6)
authority when there is a ``legal'' error. As explained previously, the
statute does not say this. It only uses the term ``error''; that term
is not defined, and its plain meaning encompasses errors of law or
fact. In this case, while no intervening judicial decision or change in
legal
[[Page 12695]]
interpretation has prompted this proposed error correction, this is no
way diminishes the appropriate exercise of CAA section 110(k)(6) error
correction authority in this instance. The EPA approved Kansas's and
Iowa's SIPs based on a mistaken belief that they would not contribute
above the 1 percent threshold to receptors in 2023. The updated air
quality and contribution analysis that the EPA used to render final
determinations in the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan
as to all other states' interstate transport obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS now indicates these findings were in error. To align the
treatment of these states with all others, it is not only reasonable,
but necessary for consistency and equity, to correct these approvals to
disapprovals. To clarify, if Kansas and Iowa are not required to now
meet their interstate transport obligations based on this new
information, other upwind states as well as the downwind areas to which
they are linked could bear a greater burden to reduce air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ The court in EME Homer City noted that its holding was
limited to the circumstance where ``a federal court says that EPA
lacked statutory authority at the time to approve a SIP.'' 795 F.3d
at 135 n.12. However, this statement was in relation to its holding
that the EPA had properly invoked the good cause exception of the
Administrative Procedure Act to issue those error corrections
without public notice and comment. See id. The EPA does not read
this statement as a limitation on the exercise of error-correction
authority generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making this proposed determination, the EPA observes that all
other states whose good neighbor SIP submissions had previously been
approved using older data are found in the 2023 and 2026 air quality
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to continue not to
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS at any receptors. Thus, there
remains no need to revisit those approvals, because the updated air
quality analysis does not indicate that they were in error. Similarly,
where the EPA's final analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
indicated that, contrary to prior expectations, a State is not linked
above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors, the EPA has taken action
to approve that State's submission. This is the case for Wyoming. See
88 FR 54998 (Aug. 14, 2023). In no case has the EPA issued a final
disapproval of a good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
only to find that State not linked in the 2016v3 modeling or pursuant
to its violating-monitor receptor identification methodology. Had this
circumstance arisen, consistent with the position adopted here, the EPA
fully expects it would have acted under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
correct such a disapproval to an approval.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ For the same reasons, this is not a circumstance in which
the error correction is based in any sense on a change in agency
policy. The use of error correction authority in this case is in
keeping with the EPA's previously stated policy and consistent with
its practices in evaluating good neighbor obligations. See 88 FR
9364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA affirms in general that it does not view all
modeling results as subject to obligatory (or even discretionary)
revision under error-correction authority, simply because later
information shows a modeling projection to deviate from subsequent
modeling or real-world information. Agencies such as the EPA,
regulating in a scientifically complex arena such as the CAA, must be
able to make and rely on modeling projections, and this reliance is
appropriate and lawful even if modeling projections later may be found
to deviate from real-world information. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at
135 (``We will not invalidate EPA's predictions solely because there
might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real
world.''); see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 318 (holding that the EPA
must implement the Act even in the face of uncertainty). However, the
distinction here is in the fact that, following the approval of Kansas'
and Iowa's SIPs, new modeling information (and other air quality
analysis) was developed that informed, on a nationally consistent
basis, the EPA's determinations regarding the good neighbor obligations
of all other states. The EPA finds that in this circumstance, error
correction under CAA section 110(k)(6) is warranted and appropriate.
In proposing these error corrections, the Agency has reviewed the
original submittals from Iowa and Kansas. The Agency finds no
information, analysis, or implementation of control measures in these
submittals that could warrant approval on an alternative basis. The EPA
finds that neither Kansas nor Iowa submitted an appropriate analysis of
receptor specific information that could justify the application of a
higher Step 2 screening threshold of 1 ppb. As explained in section
III.D.3. of this document, the Agency has concluded that it will not
conduct such an analysis for any states that failed to develop such an
analysis themselves, and further, the Agency has explained through both
its Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan rulemakings that
it would not be wise policy and would frustrate the goals of
consistency and equity among states in addressing interstate ozone
pollution, to attempt to recognize alternative contribution thresholds
in various states. 88 FR at 9371-75. In addition, neither Kansas or
Iowa submitted an analysis of emissions control strategies or
alternative frameworks for analysis at Step 3 that could justify
approval of their submissions on that basis. Further, neither State
provided any enforceable emissions control measures in their
submissions.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to correct its error in approving
Iowa's and Kansas' good neighbor SIP submissions. This error correction
under CAA section 110(k)(6) would revise the approval of the portion of
Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that
addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to a partial disapproval as to
Prong 2 and rescinds any statements that the portion of Iowa's and
Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission that addresses CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Prong 2, satisfies the requirements of the good
neighbor provision. The EPA's approval of these SIP submissions as to
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision is not proposed to be changed.
The EPA is not proposing to correct the elements of Iowa's and Kansas'
2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that do not address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Under CAA section 110(c)(1), finalization of this partial
disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate
a FIP for Kansas and Iowa to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do
in this action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets
these requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not
start a mandatory sanctions clock.
As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions
reductions that are required for Iowa and Kansas to satisfy their good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The analysis on which
the EPA proposes this conclusion for Iowa and Kansas is the same,
nationally consistent analytical framework on which the Agency proposes
FIP action for the other states in this proposed action, as well as for
the 23 states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate
Finding
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA finalized its
determination that the rule is applicable in all areas of Indian
country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) within the covered 23-state
geography of the final rule, as explained
[[Page 12696]]
in section III.C.2. of that action.\130\ Here in this action, the EPA
proposes to apply this determination to all areas of Indian country
within the covered geography of this proposed rule. Certain areas of
Indian country within the geography of the rule are or may be subject
to State implementation planning authority. For the other areas of
Indian country within that geography, none of the relevant tribes has
as yet sought eligibility to administer a Tribal plan to implement the
good neighbor provision.\131\ Consistent with its final determination
in section III.C.2. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is
proposing to include all areas of Indian country within the covered
geography of this rule, notwithstanding whether those areas are
currently subject to a State's implementation planning authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 88 FR at 36690-93.
\131\ Under 40 CFR 49.4(a), tribes are not subject to the
specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for NAAQS-
related requirements, including deadlines for submittal of plans
addressing transport impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to areas of Indian country not currently subject to a
State's implementation planning authority--i.e., Indian reservation
lands and other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction--the EPA here proposes a
``necessary or appropriate'' finding that direct Federal implementation
of the rule's requirements is warranted under CAA section 301(d)(4) and
40 CFR 49.11(a) (the areas of Indian country subject to this finding
are referred to later as the CAA section 301(d) FIP areas). Indian
Tribes may, but are not required to, submit Tribal plans to implement
CAA requirements, including the good neighbor provision. Section 301(d)
of the CAA and 40 CFR part 49 authorize the Administrator to treat an
Indian Tribe in the same manner as a State (i.e., Treatment As State
(TAS)) for purposes of developing and implementing a Tribal plan that
addresses good neighbor obligations. See 40 CFR 49.3; see also ``Indian
Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management,'' hereafter ``Tribal
Authority Rule'' (63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998). The EPA is authorized
to directly implement the good neighbor provision in the 301(d) FIP
areas when it finds, consistent with the authority of CAA section 301--
which the EPA has exercised in 40 CFR 49.11--that it is necessary or
appropriate to do so.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 562 F.3d 1116,
1125 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that 40 CFR 49.11(a) ``provides the
EPA discretion to determine what rulemaking is necessary or
appropriate to protect air quality and requires the EPA to
promulgate such rulemaking''); Safe Air For Everyone v. U.S. Env't
Prot. Agency, No. 05-73383, 2006 WL 3697684, at *1 (9th Cir., Dec.
15, 2006) (``The statutes and regulations that enable EPA to
regulate air quality on Indian reservations provide EPA with broad
discretion in setting the content of such regulations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes in this action to find that it is both necessary
and appropriate to regulate all new and existing EGU and non-EGU
sources meeting the applicability criteria set forth in this proposed
rule in the 301(d) FIP areas that are located within the geographic
scope of coverage of the rule. For purposes of this proposed finding,
the geographic scope of coverage of the rule means the areas of the
United States encompassed within the borders of the states of Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.\133\ For EGU applicability
criteria, see section VII.A. of this document; for non-EGU
applicability criteria, see section VII.B. of this document. To the
EPA's knowledge, there are two existing EGU sources located within the
301(d) FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort
Mojave Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ With respect to any non-EGU sources located in the 301(d)
FIP areas, the geographic scope of coverage of this proposed rule
does not include those states for which the EPA proposes to find,
based on air quality modeling, that no further linkage exists by the
2026 analytic year at Steps 1 and 2. The only State in this rule
projected to be linked in 2026 is Arizona.
\134\ The EPA is currently not aware of any existing non-EGU
sources that are located within the 301(d) FIP areas within
Arizona's borders that meet the non-EGU applicability criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed finding is consistent with the EPA's prior good
neighbor rules, including the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In prior
rulemakings under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has included all
areas of Indian country within the geographic scope of those FIPs, such
that any new or existing sources meeting the rules' applicability
criteria would be subject to the rule. In the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update,
and the Revised CSAPR Update, the scope of the emissions trading
programs established for EGUs extended to cover all areas of Indian
country located within the geographic boundaries of the covered states.
In these rules, at the time of their promulgation, no existing units
were located in the covered areas of Indian country; under the general
applicability criteria of the trading programs, however, any new
sources located in such areas would become subject to the programs.
Thus, the EPA established a separate allowance allocation that would be
available for any new units locating in any of the relevant areas of
Indian country. See, e.g., 76 FR at 48293 (describing the CSAPR
methodology of allowance allocation under the ``Indian country new unit
set-aside'' provisions); see also id. at 48217 (explaining the EPA's
source of authority for directly regulating in relevant areas of Indian
country as necessary or appropriate). Further, in any action in which
the EPA subsequently approved a State's SIP submission to partially or
wholly replace the provisions of a CSAPR FIP, the EPA has clearly
delineated that it will continue to administer the Indian country new
unit set aside for sources in any areas of Indian country
geographically located within a State's borders and not subject to that
State's CAA planning authority, and the State may not exercise
jurisdiction over any such sources. See, e.g., 82 FR 46674, 46677
(October 6, 2017) (approving Alabama's SIP submission establishing a
State CSAPR trading program for ozone season NOX, but
providing, ``The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction.'').
For this proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes to take the same
approach with respect to regulating sources in the 301(d) FIP areas as
was finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA finds this
approach is necessary and appropriate for several reasons. First, as an
extension of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the purpose of this rule
is to address the interstate transport of ozone on a national scale.
Consistent with its findings regarding the broad upwind region covered
by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes to extend into the
geography of these five additional states a uniform level of emissions-
control stringency. (See section VI. of this document for a discussion
of the EPA's determination of control stringency for this proposal.)
Within this approach, consistency in rule requirements across all
jurisdictions is vital in ensuring the remedy for ozone transport is,
in the words of the Supreme Court, ``efficient and equitable,'' 572
U.S. 489, 519. In particular, as the Supreme Court found in EME Homer
City Generation, allocating responsibility through uniform levels of
control across the entire upwind geography is ``equitable'' because, by
imposing uniform cost thresholds on regulated States, the EPA's rule
subjects to stricter regulation
[[Page 12697]]
those States that have done relatively less in the past to control
their pollution. Upwind States that have not yet implemented pollution
controls of the same stringency as their neighbors will be stopped from
free riding on their neighbors' efforts to reduce pollution. They will
have to bring down their emissions by installing devices of the kind in
which neighboring States have already invested. Id.
In the context of addressing regional-scale ozone transport in this
proposal, a uniform level of stringency that extends to and includes
the 301(d) FIP areas geographically located within the boundaries of
the linked upwind states carries significant force. Failure to include
all such areas within the scope of the rule creates a significant risk
that these areas may be targeted for the siting of facilities emitting
ozone-precursor pollutants to avoid the regulatory costs that would be
imposed under this proposed rule in the surrounding areas of State
jurisdiction. Electricity generation or the production of other goods
and commodities may become more cost-competitive at any EGUs or non-
EGUs not subject to the rule but located in a geography where all
surrounding facilities in the same industrial category are subject to
the rule. For instance, the affected EGU sources located on the Fort
Mojave Reservation of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Navajo
Reservation of the Navajo Nation are both in areas covered by the
interconnected western electricity grid. The EGU source on the Fort
Mojave Reservation is owned by a large merchant power supplier and the
EGU source on the Navajo Reservation is jointly owned by entities that
supply electricity to customers in several states. It is both necessary
and appropriate, in the EPA's view, to avoid creating, via this
proposed rule, a structure of incentives that may cause generation or
production--and the associated NOX emissions--to shift into
the 301(d) FIP areas to escape regulation needed to eliminate
interstate transport under the good neighbor provision.
The EPA finds it is appropriate to propose direct Federal
implementation of the proposed rule's requirements in the 301(d) FIP
areas at this time rather than at a later date. Tribes generally have
the opportunity to seek TAS and to undertake Tribal implementation
plans under the CAA. To date, no tribe relevant to an existing EGU in
the 301(d) FIP areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (or for any other NAAQS)
has expressed an intent to do so for purposes of regulating interstate
transport of air pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). Nor has the
EPA heard such intentions from any other tribe within the geography of
this rule, and it would not be reasonable to expect tribes to undertake
that planning effort, particularly when no existing sources are
currently located on their lands. Further, the EPA is mindful that
under court precedent, the EPA and states generally bear an obligation
to fully implement any required emissions reductions to eliminate
significant contribution under the good neighbor provision as
expeditiously as practicable and in alignment with downwind areas'
attainment schedule under the Act. As discussed in section VII.A. of
this document, the EPA anticipates implementing certain required
emissions reductions by the 2025 ozone season, and, for Arizona,
additional required emissions reductions by the 2027 ozone season.
Absent this proposed Federal implementation plan in the 301(d) FIP
areas, NOX emissions from any existing or new EGU or non-EGU
sources located in, or locating in, the 301(d) FIP areas within the
covered geography of the rule would remain unregulated and could
potentially increase. This would be inconsistent with the EPA's overall
goal of aligning good neighbor obligations with the downwind areas'
attainment schedule and to achieve emissions reductions as
expeditiously as practicable.
Further, the EPA recognizes that Indian country, including the
301(d) FIP areas, is often home to communities with environmental
justice concerns, and these communities may bear a disproportionate
level of pollution burden as compared with other areas of the United
States. The EPA's draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2026 \135\
includes an objective to promote environmental justice at the Federal,
Tribal, state, and local levels and states: ``Integration of
environmental justice principles into all EPA activities with Tribal
governments and in Indian country is designed to be flexible enough to
accommodate EPA's Tribal program activities and goals, while at the
same time meeting the Agency's environmental justice goals.'' By
including all areas of Indian country within the covered geography of
the rule, the EPA is advancing environmental justice, lowering
pollution burdens in such areas, and preventing the potential for
``pollution havens'' to form in such areas as a result of facilities
seeking to locate there to avoid the requirements that would otherwise
apply outside of such areas under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/fy-2022-2026-epa-draft-strategic-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, to ensure timely alignment of all needed emissions
reductions with the larger timetable of this proposed rule, to ensure
equitable distribution of the upwind pollution reduction obligation
across all upwind jurisdictions, to avoid perverse economic incentives
to locate sources of ozone-precursor pollution in the 301(d) FIP areas,
and to deliver greater environmental justice, including protection for
Tribal communities in line with Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,\136\ the EPA
proposes to find it both necessary and appropriate that all existing
and new EGU and non-EGU sources that are located in the 301(d) FIP
areas within the geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which
would be subject to this rule if located within areas subject to State
CAA planning authority, should be included in this rule. The EPA
proposes this finding under section 301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR
49.11. Further, to avoid ``unreasonable delay'' in promulgating this
FIP, as required under Sec. 49.11, the EPA concludes it is appropriate
to make this proposed finding now, to align emissions reduction
obligations for any covered new or existing sources in the section
301(d) FIP areas with the larger schedule of reductions under this
proposed rule. Because all other covered EGU and non-EGU sources within
the geography of this proposed rule would be subject to emissions
reductions of uniform stringency beginning in the 2025 ozone season,
and as necessary to fully and expeditiously address good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, there is little benefit to be had
by not proposing to include the 301(d) FIP areas in this rule now and a
potentially significant downside to not doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Executive Order 14096 (April 21, 2023): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA will continue to consult with the governments of the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe of the Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation
of the Navajo Reservation, and any other tribe wishing to continue
consultation, during the comment period for this proposal. The EPA
invites comment on this proposed finding.
[[Page 12698]]
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX Emissions Reduction Potential To
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
This section describes the EPA's methodology at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework for identifying upwind emissions
that constitute ``significant'' contribution or interference with
maintenance for the five states identified in the previous sections.
The EPA proposes to apply the same analysis to these states that it
applied for 23 states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\137\ To
summarize this analysis: The EPA applies a multi-factor test at Step 3.
The multi-factor test considers cost, available emissions reductions,
downwind air quality impacts, and other factors (e.g., controls that
have been widely adopted by like sources in other upwind states and/or
in downwind areas with ozone attainment problems) to determine the
appropriate level of control stringency that would eliminate
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors. The selection of a uniform level of NOX emissions
control stringency across all of the linked states, reflected by
representative cost per ton of emissions reduction figures for EGUs and
the identified units in non-EGU industries, were principal findings
from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These findings serve to
apportion the reduction responsibility among collectively contributing
upwind states. The EPA proposes to apply these same findings to five
additional states. As explained in section I.A. of this document, these
states are being addressed in this separate rulemaking due to a
happenstance resulting from rulemaking procedures and the timing of
development of information that informed action on other states. As
such, these states are not substantively situated differently in a
meaningful or material way from any of the other states for which the
EPA has already rendered a final determination of the appropriate level
of emissions-control stringency to eliminate significant contribution
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Had the EPA originally included these five
states in its multifactor test considering emissions reduction
potential across all linked states for this 2015 ozone NAAQS, the
Agency would have made the same control stringency determination due to
the comparable air quality circumstances and cost-effective emissions
reduction opportunities across the linked upwind-state geography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See 88 FR at 36718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA therefore proposes to extend these findings on a uniform
basis to these five additional states. This approach to quantifying
upwind State emission-reduction obligations using a uniform level of
control stringency was reviewed by the Supreme Court in EME Homer City
Generation, which held that using such an approach to apportion
emissions reduction responsibilities among upwind states that are
collectively responsible for downwind air quality impacts ``is an
efficient and equitable solution to the allocation problem the good
neighbor provision requires the Agency to address.'' 572 U.S. at 519.
In the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA's analysis focused
on NOX as the primary ozone-precursor pollutant of
concern.\138\ The EPA then conducted four analytical steps as part of
the Step 3 multifactor test to arrive at an appropriate level of
stringency that eliminated significant contribution and/or interference
with maintenance. These were: (1) identify levels of uniform
NOX control stringency; (2) evaluate potential
NOX emissions reductions associated with each identified
level of uniform control stringency; (3) assess air quality
improvements at downwind receptors for each level of uniform control
stringency; and (4) select a level of control stringency considering
the identified cost, available NOX emissions reductions, and
downwind air quality impacts, while also ensuring that emissions
reductions do not unnecessarily over-control upwind-state emissions
relative to the contribution threshold applied at Step 2 or the
resolution of downwind receptors at Step 1. The remainder of this
section summarizes the application of this analytical framework to the
EGU and non-EGU sources in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (88 FR
36719) the EPA examined the results of the contribution modeling
performed for that rule to identify the portion of the ozone
contribution attributable to anthropogenic NOX emissions
versus VOC emissions from each linked upwind State to each downwind
receptor. From that analysis, the Agency concluded that the vast
majority of the downwind air quality areas addressed by the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan are primarily NOX-limited, rather than
VOC-limited. Therefore, the EPA found that regulation of
NOX emissions was necessary while regulation of VOCs as
an ozone precursor in upwind states was not necessary to eliminate
significant contribution or interference with maintenance in
downwind areas in that rule. Considering that many of the downwind
locations are the same in this rulemaking, and that the EPA is
relying on the same air quality modeling, the EPA affirms that the
conclusions about regulation of NOX emissions relative to
VOCs from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan apply in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both EGUs and non-EGUs, section VI.B. of this document
describes the available NOX emissions controls that the EPA
evaluated for this proposed rule and their representative cost levels
(in 2016$). Section VI.C. of this document discusses the EPA's
application of that information to assess emissions reduction potential
of the identified control stringencies. Finally, section VI.D. of this
document describes the EPA's assessment of associated air quality
impacts and proposed determination of significant contribution. Section
VI.D. of this document also describes the analysis the Agency conducted
to evaluate if its selected control strategy would result in over-
control for any upwind state, that is, whether an upwind State could
have reduced its air quality contributions below the 1 percent of NAAQS
air quality contribution threshold at a lower level of emissions-
control stringency than identified in the GNP.
As in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA applies its multi-
factor test at Step 3 to EGUs and non-EGUs on consistent but parallel
tracks. Following the conclusions of the EGU and non-EGU multi-factor
tests, the identified reductions for EGUs and non-EGUs are combined and
collectively analyzed to assess their effects on downwind air quality
and whether the proposed rule achieves a full remedy to eliminate
``significant contribution'' while avoiding over-control.
As described in section III.D.4. of this document and described in
this section, the EPA proposes that it is reasonable and equitable to
apply the same nationally-determined level of uniform emissions-control
stringency already determined in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan
for 23 states to these five additional states. The EPA is aware of no
state-specific circumstances as to any of these five states that would
warrant different treatment or analysis than has already been applied
on a nationwide basis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
1. EGUs
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan analyzed five NOX
emissions control strategies at EGUs: (1) fully operating existing SCR,
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing
operational SCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs; (2)
installing state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls; (3)
fully operating existing SNCRs,
[[Page 12699]]
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing
operational SNCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SNCRs;
(4) installing new SNCRs; and (5) installing new SCRs.
In prior good neighbor rules, the EPA typically evaluated the
potential for emissions reductions from generation shifting at the
representative cost for each mitigation technology. This is because
shifting generation to lower NOX emitting or zero-emitting
EGUs may occur in response to economic factors. As the cost of emitting
NOX increases, it becomes increasingly cost-effective for
units with lower NOX rates to increase generation, while
units with higher NOX rates reduce generation. Because the
cost of generation is unit-specific, this generation shifting occurs
incrementally on a continuum. However, for reasons described in the
preamble for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA determined that it
was not appropriate to incorporate emissions reductions from generation
shifting.\139\ For the same reasons, the EPA does not quantify
emissions reductions from generation shifting for the states covered by
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 88 FR 36731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is equitable and reasonable to continue to use the same cost,
performance, and timelines for EGU NOX mitigation strategies
that were determined for EGUs for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan \140\
for the five additional states, as described in section III.D.4. of
this document. The analysis of NOX emissions controls was
completed recently and there have been no meaningful changes in the
factors considered since that analysis was completed.\141\ Table
VI.B.1-1 summarizes the cost, performance, and availability dates based
on the implementation timelines for the EGU NOX mitigation
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 88 FR 36720-36732.
\141\ See the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final
Rule TSD Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and supported
by technical information provided in the EGU NOX Mitigation
Strategies Final Rule TSD and its Addendum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, the EPA finds that the timeframe for optimizing
existing SCR and SNCR controls is about 2 months or less, and the
timeframe for upgrading combustion controls is about 6 months.
Additionally, for the same reasons described in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that the first season for installing
new SNCRs should be aligned with the first season of feasible
installation for SCRs, i.e., the 2027 ozone season.\142\ Finally, for
the same reasons that the EPA described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR installation at EGUs can occur over a
36-48 month period, taking into account the fleetwide nature of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (including this supplemental rulemaking to
expand the Plan's coverage to five additional states, which considers
emissions reductions commensurate with retrofitting SCR on only an
additional seven units in Arizona).\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 88 FR 36726.
\143\ 88 FR 36727.
Table VI.B.1-1--Summary of EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies, Representative Costs, Timelines, and Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative cost First ozone season available NOX emissions rate
Mitigation strategy (2016$) Implementation timeline for supplemental states Unit applicability (lb/MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully Operating Existing SCR $1,600/ton......... <2 months............... 2025........................ Covered fossil- Coal steam: 0.08; O/
(optimizing operating and idled fired units with G Steam: 0.03;
SCR). SCR. Combustion
Turbine: 0.03;
Combined Cycle:
0.012.
Installing State-Of-The-Art $1,600/ton......... 6 to 8 months........... 2025........................ Covered coal steam 0.199.
Combustion Controls. units lacking
state-of-the-art
combustion
controls.
Fully Operating Existing SNCR $1,800/ton......... <2 months............... 2025........................ Covered fossil- Up to a 25%
(optimizing operating and idled fired units with reduction in
SNCR). SNCR. emissions rate if
SNCR idled.
Installing New SNCR.............. $6,700/ton......... 16 months............... 2027........................ Covered CFB units Up to a 50%
of any size and reduction in
other coal steam emissions rate for
units under 100 MW CFB units; up to a
lacking post- 25% reduction in
combustion NOX emissions rate for
controls \144\. other units.
Installing New SCR............... $11,000/ton (coal 36 to 48 months......... 2027 (with phase in over Covered coal steam 0.05 for coal steam
steam); $7,700 (O/ 2027 and 2028). units (except CFB) units; 0.03 for O/
G steam). great than 100 MW; G steam units.
O/G Steam units at
least 100 MW and
with at least 150
tons NOX emissions
on average for the
2019 to 2021 ozone
seasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-EGUs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ No units in Arizona, the only State in this proposal
linked in 2026, meet this criterion, but the mitigation strategy is
included in the table for completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA developed an analytical
framework to facilitate decisions about which industries and emissions
unit types in the non-electric generating unit ``sector'' may have a
share of upwind states' significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
A February 28, 2022 memorandum documents the analytical framework that
the EPA used to initially identify, through a regional-scale,
multistate screening assessment (Screening Assessment), industries and
emissions unit types for which there appeared to be cost-effective
reductions having the greatest potential for air quality benefit in
downwind states.\145\ From this Screening Assessment, the EPA further
developed its proposed set of emissions control strategies for non-EGUs
that would fully eliminate significant contribution from the
[[Page 12700]]
upwind states.\146\ Following consideration of public comment, in the
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan the EPA finalized emissions control
requirements for certain non-EGU sources. The EPA prepared a memorandum
summarizing the emissions unit types, applicability criteria, emissions
limits, estimated number of emissions units captured by the
applicability criteria, and estimated emissions reductions and
costs.\147\ The EPA updated its technical analysis of non-EGU industry
sectors and responded to public comments.\148\ The final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan established a uniform set of emissions control
requirements for non-EGU sources in nine industries for each of the 20
states for which the EPA found continuing contribution at or above 1
percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone season. See generally 88 FR
at 36817-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ The memorandum titled Screening Assessment of Potential
Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and Costs from Non-EGU
Emissions Units for 2026 is available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0150.
\146\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the
Proposed Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0145.
\147\ The memorandum titled Summary of Final Rule Applicability
Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions Units, Assumed
Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions Limits, and
Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs is
available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
\148\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the
Final Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with its EGU analysis at Step 3, the EPA finds that it is
equitable and reasonable to extend these same findings for the relevant
non-EGU sources in the State of Arizona, which is the only state
covered in this action for which the EPA continues to find a continuing
contribution at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone
season. Several points that the EPA observed in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan bear emphasis in explaining why it is reasonable for
Arizona's sources to be subject to the same Step 3 analysis and non-EGU
control requirements as the other covered states. There is an equitable
concern that supports an approach by which direct competitors within
identified industries within the geography of linked upwind states are
held to the same level of emissions performance, as this avoids the
potential for emissions shifting or competitive disadvantages brought
on by assigning transport obligations to individual sources that are
not borne by their competitors in other linked upwind states. Thus,
this has informed how the EPA has consistently approached assessing
emissions control opportunities in prior ozone transport rulemakings,
and in particular, the analysis of emissions control opportunities on
an industry-wide basis. For example, in CSAPR, we focused on a single
industry, the power sector (or EGUs), because we found that in general,
across this industry, there were highly cost-effective emissions
control opportunities compared to other industries (based on our
assessment at that time). See 76 FR at 48249. Similarly, in the
NOX SIP Call, we also focused on assessing emissions-control
opportunities by industry (using NAICS-code industry classifications as
we do in this action), while recognizing that boilers are a unit type
that could have cost-effective emissions reductions across multiple
industries (as we again recognize in this action). See 63 FR at 57399.
The EPA explained in the NOX SIP Call that this approach
``assure[d] equity among the various source categories and the
industries they represent,'' id.
It was precisely this analytical framework that the Supreme Court
upheld in EME Homer City, noting the ``thorny causation problem'' of
interstate pollution transport, 572 U.S. at 514, the need to account
for ``the vagaries of the wind,'' id. at 497, and the complexity of
allocating responsibility among potentially large groups of states who
may each contribute to one another's air quality problems as well as to
multiple other states in varying degrees, id. 514-16.
Applying these principles here, the EPA views it as reasonable to
conclude that the Screening Assessment methodology continues to serve
as a reasonable and reliable method for distinguishing potentially
impactful industries from non-impactful industries in Arizona, just as
in the other states for purposes of defining good neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the context of a FIP. The Screening
Assessment identified nine out of approximately 40 industries for
further evaluation. That these were found to be the nine potentially
most impactful industries is not surprising, as each of these
industries typically involve large-scale fossil-fuel combustion as part
of their manufacturing or other processes, have historically had high
NOX emissions as a result, and are projected to continue to
have relatively high NOX emissions into the future. For
existing as well as any new sources that come to be located in Arizona,
it therefore makes sense to require these sources to meet the same
emissions control requirements that the same types of sources are
subject to in the covered states that have been found to have non-EGU
emissions that significantly contribute to other states' problems
attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA therefore proposes to apply the same Step 3 non-EGU
analytical framework for Arizona as applied in the covered states whose
sources are subject to these requirements. Table VI.B.2-1 summarizes
the industries, emissions unit types, and applicability requirements,
and Table VI.B.2-2 summarizes the industries, emissions unit types,
form of proposed emissions limits, and proposed emissions limits.
Table VI.B.2-1--Summary of Industries, Non-EGU Emissions Unit Types, and
Applicability Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions unit Applicability
Industry type requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Reciprocating Nameplate rating of
Natural Gas. Internal >=1000 braking
Combustion horsepower (bhp).
Engines.
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns............ Directly emits or has
Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tons per
year (tpy) or more
of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and Reheat Furnaces.. Directly emits or has
Ferroalloy Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tpy or more
of NOX.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces......... Directly emits or has
Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tpy or more
of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and Boilers.......... Design capacity of
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; >=100 mmBtu/hr.
Metal Ore Mining; Basic
Chemical Manufacturing;
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Mills.
[[Page 12701]]
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or Design capacity >=250
Incinerators. Incinerators. tons of waste/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.B.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Form of Proposed Emissions Limits, and
Proposed Emissions Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of proposed
Industry Emissions unit type emissions limits Proposed emissions limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Internal Grams per horsepower Four Stroke Rich Burn: 1.0
Gas. Combustion Engines. per hours (g/hp-hr). g/hp-hr; Four Stroke Lean
Burn: 1.5 g/hp-hr; Two
Stroke Lean Burn: 3.0 g/hp-
hr.
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns................. Pounds per ton (lbs/ Long Wet: 4.0 lb/ton; Long
Manufacturing. ton) of clinker. Dry: 3.0 lb/ton;
Preheater: 3.8 lb/ton;
Precalciner: 2.3 lb/ton;
Preheater/Precalciner: 2.8
lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Reheat Furnaces....... lbs/mmBtu \a\......... Test and set limit based on
Manufacturing. installation of Low-NOX
Burners.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces.............. lbs/ton glass produced Container Glass Furnace:
Manufacturing. 4.0 lb/ton; Pressed/Blown
Glass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton;
Fiberglass Furnace: 4.0 lb/
ton; Flat Glass Furnace: 7
lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Boilers............... lbs/mmBtu \a\......... Coal: 0.20 lb/mmBtu;
Manufacturing; Metal Ore Mining; Residual Oil: 0.20 lb/
Basic Chemical Manufacturing; mmBtu; Distillate Oil:
Petroleum and Coal Products 0.12 lb/mmBtu; Natural
Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and Gas: 0.08 lb/mmBtu.
Paperboard Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or ppmvd on a 24-hour 110 ppmvd on a 24-hour
Incinerators. Incinerators. averaging period and averaging period; 105
ppmvd on a 30-day ppmvd on a 30-day
averaging period. averaging period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Heat input limit.
C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per Ton) and
Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
For EGUs, as discussed in section VI.A. of this document, the
multi-factor test considers increasing levels of uniform control
stringency in combination with considering total NOX
reduction potential and corresponding air quality improvements. The EPA
evaluated EGU NOX emissions controls that are widely
available (described previously in section VI.B.1. of this document),
that were assessed in previous rules to address ozone transport, and
that have been incorporated into State planning requirements to address
ozone nonattainment.
This analysis generated a selected representative cost threshold of
$11,000 per ton, associated with the retrofit of SCR on coal-fired EGUs
currently lacking that technology. 88 FR at 36745. All cost values
discussed in this section for EGUs are in 2016 dollars.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and final
Revised CSAPR Update RIA, as well as the proposal and final Federal
Good Neighbor Plan RIA, to be consistent with those recent actions
we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar year for presenting
costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tables summarize the emissions reduction potentials
(in ozone season tons) from these emissions controls across the
affected jurisdictions. Table VI.C.1-1 focuses on near-term emissions
controls while Table VI.C.1-2 includes emissions controls with extended
implementation timeframes.
Table VI.C.1-1--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Near Term *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels
of technology inclusion
-----------------------------------------------
Baseline 2025 SCR SCR/SNCR
State OS NOX optimization + optimization +
SCR combustion combustion
optimization control control
upgrades upgrades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................................... 8,479 84 153 284
Iowa............................................ 9,867 0 54 115
Kansas.......................................... 5,510 747 747 747
New Mexico...................................... 2,241 31 31 31
Tennessee....................................... 4,064 81 81 81
---------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12702]]
Total....................................... 30,162 943 1,066 1,257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.
Table VI.C.1-2--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Extended Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of technology
inclusion
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCR/SNCR
State Baseline 2026 SCR SCR/SNCR optimization +
OS NOX SCR optimization + optimization + combustion
optimization combustion combustion control
control control upgrades + SCR/
upgrades upgrades SNCR retrofits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 6,098 84 153 284 2,085
Iowa............................ 9,773 0 0 60 5,747
Kansas.......................... 5,510 747 747 747 2,398
New Mexico...................... 2,038 31 31 31 361
Tennessee....................... 4,064 81 81 81 81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 27,484 943 1,012 1,203 10,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.
2. Non-EGUs
As detailed in the memorandum titled, Summary of Final Rule
Applicability Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions
Units, Assumed Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions
Limits, and Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs
\150\ prepared for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA uses the
2019 emissions inventory, the list of emissions units estimated to be
captured by the applicability criteria, the assumed control
technologies that would meet the emissions limits, and information on
control efficiencies and default cost/ton values from the control
measures database \151\ to estimate NOX emissions reductions
and costs for this proposal. The estimates using the 2019 inventory and
information from the control measures database identify proxies for
emissions units, as well as emissions reductions, and costs associated
with the assumed control technologies that would meet the emissions
limits. Emissions units subject to the proposed rule emissions limits
may differ from those estimated in this assessment, and the estimated
emissions reductions from and costs to meet the proposed rule emissions
limits may also differ from those estimated in this assessment. The
costs do not include monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or testing
costs. As with the analysis for non-EGUs described in section VI.B.2.
of this document, this proposal simply applies the same analysis that
was conducted for these industries in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
considering data specific to the one State included in this action,
Arizona, that is proposed to be subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan's non-EGU emissions control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
\151\ More information on the control measures database can be
found here: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.C.2-1 of this document summarizes the industries,
estimated emissions unit types, and assumed control technologies that
meet the proposed emissions limits. Table VI.C.2-2 of this document
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, and the
estimated number of control installations in Arizona. Table VI.C.2-3
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, annual
costs (2016$), and ozone season emissions reductions. The average cost
per ton is $5,457 and is estimated using annual emissions. As the EPA
discussed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the cost estimates for all
non-EGU industries were generally commensurate with the representative
uniform cost threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs. See 88 FR
at 36746-47.
[[Page 12703]]
Table VI.C.2-1--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types,
Assumed Control Technologies That Meet Proposed Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control
Emissions unit technologies that
Industry type meet proposed
emissions limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2-
Natural Gas. Internal cycle Lean Burn)
Combustion \a\; SCR (4-cycle
Engines. Lean Burn); NSCR (4-
cycle Rich Burn).
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns............ SNCR.
Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and Reheat Furnaces.. LNB.
Ferroalloy Manufacturing.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces......... LNB.
Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and Boilers.......... LNB + FGR (Natural
Ferroalloy Manufacturing. Gas, No Coal or
Oil).
Metal Ore Mining.............. ................. SCR (Any Coal, Any
Oil).
Basic Chemical Manufacturing..
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or ANSCR \b\; LN\tm\ and
Incinerators. Incinerators. SNCR \b,c\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Some emissions units, or engines, in the 2019 inventory had Source
Classification Codes indicating that the units were reciprocating
without specifying the type of engine. The EPA assumed Non-Selective
Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) or layered combustion as the control for
these emissions units.
\b\ Municipal Waste Combustor Workgroup Report, prepared by the Ozone
Transport Commission Stationary and Area Sources Committee, Revised
April 2022.
\c\ Covanta has developed a proprietary low NOX combustion system
(LN\TM\) that involves staging of combustion air. The system is a
trademarked system and Covanta has received a patent for the
technology.
Table VI.C.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies That Meet
Proposed Emissions Limits, Estimated Number of Control Installations *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Assumed control number of
Industry/industries Emissions unit type technologies that meet existing units
proposed emissions limits per assumed
control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.. Reciprocating Internal NSCR or Layered Combustion ..............
Combustion Engines. (Reciprocating).
Layered Combustion (2- 6
cycle Lean Burn).
SCR (4-cycle Lean Burn)... ..............
NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn).. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
Table VI.C.2-3--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated
Total Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions in 2026 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control
technologies that Annual costs Ozone season
Industry/industries Emissions unit type meet proposed (2016$) emissions
emissions limits reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2- 4,309,893 329
Gas. Internal Combustion cycle Lean Burn).
Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX Reductions, and Air Quality
As described in section V.A. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble, to determine the emissions that are significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance, the EPA
applied the multi-factor test to EGUs and non-EGUs on separate but
parallel tracks, considering for each the relationship of cost,
available emissions reductions, and downwind air quality impacts.
Specifically, for each sector, the EPA finalized a determination
regarding the fact that a uniform NOX control stringency was
appropriate and identified an appropriate level of uniform
NOX control stringency that would eliminate significant
contribution from each upwind state. Based on the air quality results
presented in section V.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble,
the EPA found that the emissions control strategies that were
identified and evaluated in sections V.B. and V.C. of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble were cost-effective and delivered meaningful air
quality benefits through projected reductions in ozone levels across
the linked downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the
relevant analytic years 2023 and 2026. Further, the EPA found the
emissions control strategies in upwind states that would deliver these
benefits to be widely available and in use at many other similar EGU
and non-EGU facilities throughout the country, particularly in those
areas that have historically or now continue to struggle to attain and
[[Page 12704]]
maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As described in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, for this regional pollutant (i.e., ozone), for this
NAAQS (i.e., 2015 ozone), applying these emissions control strategies
on a uniform basis across all linked upwind states constituted an
efficient and equitable solution to the problem of allocating upwind-
state responsibility for the elimination of significant contribution.
See 88 FR at 36741.
The EPA finds that this solution should appropriately be extended
to apply to the five remaining states addressed in this rulemaking.
This uniform regional approach applying the levels of stringency
determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan is in keeping with the
uniform stringency approach that the EPA has applied across linked
upwind states in its ozone transport rulemakings beginning with the
NOX SIP Call. The EPA finds that this approach continues to
effectively address the ``thorny'' causation problem of interstate
pollution transport for regional-scale pollutants like ozone that
transport over large distances and are affected by the vagaries of
meteorology. EME Homer City, 572 U.S. at 514-16. It requires the most
impactful sources in each State that has been found to contribute to
ozone problems in other states to come up to minimum standards of
environmental performance based on demonstrated NOX
pollution-control technology. Id. at 519. As described in section V. of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, when the effects of these emissions
reductions are assessed collectively across the hundreds of EGU and
non-EGU industrial sources that are subject to that rule, the
cumulative improvements in ozone levels at downwind receptors, while
they may vary to some extent, are both measurable and meaningful and
will assist downwind areas in attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. In this rule, we find that in these five additional states,
there are emissions reductions available at the costs and control
levels identified in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and that these
emissions reductions will likewise play a part in the meaningful air
quality improvements that will assist downwind areas in attaining and
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS and ensure that linked upwind states
are held to resolving their fair share of the problem.
As discussed in the following sub-sections, the EPA has evaluated
the air quality effects of the different emissions control strategies
identified. The receptors show measurable improvement in air quality at
each incremental control stringency, up to and including the selected
emissions control strategies for EGUs and non-EGUs. These analytic
findings further confirm that the selected control stringency applied
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states is also the appropriate
control stringency to eliminate significant contribution for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for these additional five states. In this proposal, for the
states specifically included, the EPA also evaluates whether the
proposal results in over-control by evaluating if an upwind State is
linked solely to downwind air quality problems that could have been
resolved at a lower cost threshold, or if an upwind State could have
reduced its emissions below the 1 percent of NAAQS air quality
contribution threshold at a lower cost threshold than identified in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The Agency finds no overcontrol from this
proposal.
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
As described in section VI.A. of this document, in Step 3, the
multifactor test considers cost and air quality factors. In addition,
in this proposed action the EPA continues to apply its longstanding
approach of considering uniform level of NOX control
stringency as foundational to the identification of emissions that
significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS, in light of the regional-scale, meteorological-variability, and
long-range transport aspects of the ozone pollution problem. Thus, at a
foundational level, the EPA views it as fundamentally equitable,
efficient, and workable to extend the same emissions control strategies
found necessary to eliminate significant contribution from 23 states
already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five
additional states. See EME Homer, 572 U.S. at 524.
As described in section VI.A. of this document, in addition to
being cost-effective on a cost per ton basis, the EPA's determination
at Step 3 for both EGUs and non-EGUs is also informed by the overall
level of emissions reductions that will be achieved and the effect
those reductions are projected to have on air quality at the downwind
receptors. The EPA also explained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
that, for EGUs, the EPA is also influenced by the fact that the
emissions control strategies for EGUs are generally well-demonstrated
to be achieved in practice at many existing units, as established
through our review of the controls currently installed on the fleet of
existing EGUs (see 88 FR at 36680). For non-EGUs, the EPA is also
influenced by the fact that the emissions control strategies for non-
EGUs are generally well demonstrated to be achieved in practice at many
existing units, as established through our review of consent decrees,
permits, Reasonably Available Control Technologies determinations, and
other data sources (see 88 FR at 36661).
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, to assess the air
quality impacts of the various control stringencies at downwind
receptors for the purposes of Step 3 in that rule, the EPA evaluated
changes resulting from the emissions reductions associated with the
identified emissions controls in each of the upwind states, as well as
assumed corresponding reductions of similar stringency in the downwind
State containing the receptor to which they are linked. By applying
these emissions reductions to the State containing the receptor, the
EPA assumed that the downwind State will implement (if it has not
already) an emissions control stringency for its sources that is
comparable to the upwind control stringency that was applied.
Consequently, the EPA accounted for the downwind State's ``fair share''
of the responsibility for resolving a nonattainment or maintenance
problem as a part of the over-control evaluation.\152\ As a result, the
EPA estimated the air quality design values (both average and maximum
design values) under both the base and control scenarios and, also,
evaluated the air quality contributions from each State to each
downwind monitor relative to the Step 2 contribution threshold. In this
supplemental rule, for the Step 3 and over-control evaluations, the EPA
applied the same framework using the data and tools from the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan (see the Good Neighbor Plan Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Final Rule TSD for details). As described in the next section,
the EPA examined whether its findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
regarding stringency and overcontrol were robust to the updated
[[Page 12705]]
geographic coverage inclusive of the states identified in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ For EGUs, the analysis for the Connecticut receptors in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan shows no EGU reduction potential in
Connecticut from the emissions reduction measures identified given
that State's already low-emitting fleet; however, EGU reductions
were identified in Colorado and these reductions were included in
the over-control analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section III.D.1. of this document, the EPA
continues to use 2023 and 2026 as the analytical years to inform its
evaluation of good neighbor obligations for these five additional
states, since these years were selected and used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan as aligned with the 2024 and 2027 attainment dates and to
maintain consistency and ensure equity among all states. See 88 FR at
36749-50.
3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
For 2023, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the emissions
reduction potential associated with each EGU emissions control
technology (summarized in section VI.C. of this document) in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan to arrive at an appropriate level of
stringency. The EPA uses the same framework for this supplemental
action, and similarly determined that (1) there are available emissions
reductions from these additional states in 2023, (2) they have a
beneficial impact on downwind air quality at identified receptors, and
(3) the updated geography, when incorporated into the multi-factor
test, supports the same stringency or over control findings in this
action as that of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA confirmed
that the emissions reductions from the five states, in isolation and in
combination with those from the states in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, reduced ozone levels at downwind receptors. For 2023, the
resulting average and maximum design values, adjusted relative to the
modeled design values can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA confirmed that these
emissions reductions also do not result in the air quality
contributions for any of the supplemental states dropping below the
Step 2 air quality contribution threshold to all monitors to which the
State is linked (see the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental
Proposed Rule TSD for details). While the average improvement in
downwind air quality improvement for these five states is expectedly
smaller than that for the 22-state region of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan's EGU control program, so too are the expected emissions
reductions. Importantly, for individual State and receptor linkages,
downwind air quality improvement was found (see the Ozone Transport
Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD). Moreover, health
benefits associated with just minor improvements in ozone
concentrations far exceed the cost of such mitigation measures.
Likewise, for 2026, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the
emissions reduction potential associated with the EGU and non-EGU
emissions control technologies (presented in sections IV.B. and VI.C.
of this document). Arizona was the only State among the five states
with more stringent measures applied in 2026 due to their continued
expected linkage. The EPA confirmed that these emissions reductions,
both individually and in combination with those from the states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, had impacts on the air quality at downwind
receptors. For 2026, the resulting average and maximum design values,
adjusted relative to the modeled design values, can be found in the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA
confirmed that these emissions reductions also do not result in the air
quality contributions from Arizona dropping below the Step 2 air
quality contribution threshold for all of its remaining receptors (see
the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplement Proposal for
details).\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ The EPA's comprehensive Step 3 analysis for the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan specifically evaluated all states contributing
above the threshold to each individual monitor. This included each
of the five supplemental states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee) even though they were not regulated in that
rulemaking. These states had their emissions adjusted when their air
quality contributions were greater than or equal to 1 percent of the
NAAQS for each individual downwind monitor in that action. Thus,
they were already aligned with EPA's GNP Step 3 conclusion even
prior to their re-examination in this action. While the results
below highlight the collective impact of the updated geography,
consistent with the final GNP Step 3 analysis, the segmental air
quality benefits pertaining to the emissions reductions from these
five states can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Supplemental Proposed TSD and corresponding files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusions
Considering the cost and air quality factors described above, with
respect to emissions reductions available in the near term, the EPA
proposes that the 2023 control stringency for EGUs identified for 22
states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitutes the emissions
reductions that comprise each of these five states' interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For all affected
supplemental states, this control stringency reflects the optimization
of existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-
art NOX combustion controls, which are widely available at a
representative cost of $1,800 per ton. The EPA's evaluation also shows
that the effective emissions rate performance across affected EGUs
consistent with realization of these mitigation measures has
substantial air quality benefits and does not over-control upwind
states' emissions relative to either the downwind air quality problems
to which they are linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution
threshold at Step 2. This strategy will fully resolve obligations for
the states of Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
Similarly, in the case of extended implementation control measures,
the EPA proposes that the 2026 control stringencies for EGUs and non-
EGUs finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitute the
emissions reductions that comprise the full elimination of Arizona's
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
For Arizona, this control stringency reflects the installation of new
SCR post-combustion controls at coal steam sources greater than or
equal to 100 Megawatts (MW) and for a more limited portion of the oil/
gas steam fleet that had higher levels of emissions. As described in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, for EGUs, in addition to the
optimization of existing post-combustion controls and installation of
state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls these SCR retrofits
are appropriate for Arizona's linkages which persist and interfere with
downwind areas' ability to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Serious
nonattainment date (i.e., through the 2026 ozone season) at $11,000 and
$7,700 per ton respectively. This control stringency also includes the
estimated emissions reductions from certain non-EGUs. These emissions
reductions for non-EGU sources are estimated to cost an average of
$5,457/ton, which is approximately half the representative uniform cost
threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs.
Furthermore, the EPA's evaluation shows that the effective
emissions rate performance across EGUs and non-EGUs consistent with the
full realization of these mitigation measures reduces ozone levels at
the receptors to which Arizona is linked and does not over-control
Arizona's emissions in 2026 relative to either the downwind air quality
problems to which it is linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution
threshold at Step 2.
VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
To implement the required emissions reductions from EGUs in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee, the EPA in this
rulemaking is proposing
[[Page 12706]]
to expand the geographic scope of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program (``Group 3 trading program'') to include
sources in these five states. Refer to section VI.B.1. of the preamble
of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for a general discussion of the use
of allowance trading programs to achieve required emissions reductions
from the electric power sector and an overview of the Group 3 trading
program's enhancements to maintain the selected control stringency over
time and to improve emissions performance at individual units.
The EPA is not proposing to alter the Group 3 trading program
design elements finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is
proposing to extend the program and its design elements to apply to
sources in these five additional states. These design elements include
the methodology for determining preset State emissions budgets for the
2023-2029 control periods, the methodology for determining dynamic
State emissions budgets for control periods in 2026 and onwards, the
annual recalibration of the Group 3 allowance bank, the unit-specific
backstop daily emissions rate, the unit-specific emissions limitations
contingent on assurance level exceedances, and monitoring and reporting
requirements. The EPA provided opportunity for comment on these design
elements in the public comment period following the proposal of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Following feedback from many commenters
throughout the country, the EPA finalized the design elements with some
modifications, and section VI.B. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble provides robust discussion of changes made in response to
comments. The EPA additionally carefully evaluated and comprehensively
responded to comments in the Response to Comment document included in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan docket. In general, the Agency considers
any issues associated with the application of the Group 3 Trading
Program in these five additional states to be within the scope of this
action. The EPA does not propose changes in the basic design elements
that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and is not aware
of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach in
extending these provisions to these five additional states. Throughout
the remainder of this section, where the EPA has identified particular
issues that are clearly within the scope of this proposal, it has noted
its invitation to comment.
For the reasons explained in section VI.B.1. of this document, the
EPA proposes that only the EGU NOX strategies of fully
operating existing SCRs and SNCRs, and upgrading to state-of-the-art
combustion controls are possible for the 2025 ozone season. Based on an
assumption that this proposed action may be finalized sometime in the
summer of 2024, the first ozone season in which these strategies can be
implemented is the 2025 ozone season.
Regarding the strategy of retrofitting SCR controls, as the EPA
described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR
installation at EGUs can occur over a 36-48 month period, taking into
account the fleetwide nature of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
However, the Agency also recognizes that individual SCR installations
at EGUs are capable of being completed on shorter timeframes (as little
as 21 months), and this proposed action only analyzes SCR-retrofit
potential on EGUs for a single state, Arizona. Recognizing that this
proposal may be finalized sometime in the summer of 2024, the EPA
proposes that some amount of SCR-retrofit potential could be
accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season, which would be just
shy of a 3-year time period. The EPA also recognizes that the Serious
area attainment date falls on August 3, 2027, and that good neighbor
obligations should be addressed, if at all possible, no later than this
date. Taking all of these considerations into account, the EPA proposes
that SCR retrofits at EGUs in Arizona can be phased in over two ozone
seasons, 2027 and 2028. This generally aligns with the 36-48 month
estimate in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Thus, the EPA is proposing that EGU sources located in Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the
states' borders) will participate in the Group 3 trading program
starting with the 2025 ozone season, which runs from May 1, 2025, to
September 30, 2025, and continuing in each ozone season after 2025.
Sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the
states' borders), which currently participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (``Group 2 trading
program''), would not be required to participate in the Group 2 trading
program with respect to emissions occurring after 2024.\154\ The EPA
invites comment on its proposed compliance start dates for these five
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ The EPA would consider these EGUs' participation in the
Group 3 trading program as satisfying their states' good neighbor
obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and for Tennessee,
the 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS as well) to the same extent that the
states' obligations are currently being met through the EGUs'
participation in the Group 2 trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section discusses the potentially affected
units and the changes the EPA is proposing to synchronize the
integration and participation of sources in these five states into the
Group 3 trading program.
1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected Units
The Group 3 trading program applies to any stationary, fossil-fuel-
fired boiler or stationary, fossil fuel-fired combustion turbine
located in a covered State (or Indian country within the borders of a
covered state) and serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a
generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MW producing
electricity for sale, with exemptions for certain cogeneration units
and certain solid waste incineration units. The complete text of the
Group 3 trading program's applicability provisions (including the
exemptions) and the associated definitions can be found at 40 CFR
97.1004 and 40 CFR 97.1002, respectively.
The EPA is not proposing any changes to the Group 3 trading
program's applicability provisions in this rulemaking. The
applicability criteria for the Group 2 and Group 3 trading programs are
identical, with the result that any units in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee (including units in Indian country within the borders of such
states) that are already subject to the Group 2 trading program would
also become subject to the Group 3 trading program. Further, the EPA
expects that any units in Arizona and New Mexico (including units in
Indian country within the borders of such states) that are already
subject to the Acid Rain Program under that program's applicability
criteria (see 40 CFR 72.6), would also meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program.
Because the applicability criteria for the Acid Rain Program and
the Group 3 trading program are not identical, some units that are not
subject to the Acid Rain Program could meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program. Using data reported to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, the EPA has identified nine sources in
Arizona and New Mexico with a total of 23 units that that do not
currently report NOX emissions and operating data to the EPA
under the
[[Page 12707]]
Acid Rain Program but that appear to meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program. The units are listed in Table VII.A.1-
1. For each of these units, the table shows the estimated historical
heat input and emissions data that the EPA proposes to use for the unit
when determining State emissions budgets if the unit is ultimately
treated as subject to the Group 3 trading program.
Table VII.A.1-1--Selected Potentially Affected Existing Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated ozone
Estimated ozone season NOX
State Facility ID Facility name Unit ID Unit type season heat emissions rate
input (mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF4................... CT.................... 15,443 0.346
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF5................... CT.................... 13,659 0.345
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF6................... CT.................... 13,659 0.375
Arizona.......................... 160 Apache............. GT3................... CT.................... 633,453 0.135
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY4................... CT.................... 2,317 0.106
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY5................... CT.................... 5,326 0.499
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY6................... CT.................... 5,326 0.322
Arizona.......................... 116 Ocotillo........... GT1................... CT.................... 1,752,453 0.016
Arizona.......................... 116 Ocotillo........... GT2................... CT.................... 1,752,453 0.006
Arizona.......................... 118 Saguaro............ GT1................... CT.................... 284,976 0.161
Arizona.......................... 118 Saguaro............ GT2................... CT.................... 284,976 0.049
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST1................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.037
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST2................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.067
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST3................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.052
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST4................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.036
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 1B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.446
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 2B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.444
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 3B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.053
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... GT1................... CT.................... 12,125 0.165
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... GT2................... CT.................... 12,125 0.806
Arizona.......................... 120 Yucca.............. GT3................... CT.................... 587,371 0.140
Arizona.......................... 120 Yucca.............. GT4................... CT.................... 587,371 0.018
New Mexico....................... 2446 Maddox............. 2..................... CT.................... 62,445 0.309
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on which existing units in Arizona and New
Mexico and Indian country within the borders of each State would or
would not meet the applicability criteria for the Group 3 trading
program. The EPA also requests comment, with supporting data, on
whether the estimated historical heat input and emissions data
identified for each unit in Table VII.A.1-1 are representative for the
unit.
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
The Group 3 trading program as revised in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan provides for both preset and dynamic State emissions budgets.
Preset emissions budgets were determined in the rulemaking for all
states for the control periods in the years through 2029, and dynamic
emissions budgets are computed according to procedures set forth in 40
CFR 97.1010(a) for each control period starting with the 2026 control
period. In the control periods for the years from 2026 through 2029,
the emissions budget for each State will be the higher of the preset
emissions budget or the dynamic emissions budget computed for the State
for that control period. The variability limit for each State for each
control period is determined as a percentage of the State's emissions
budget for the control period in accordance with 40 CFR 97.1010(e), and
the State's assurance level for the control period is the sum of the
emissions budget and the variability limit. This same system for
determining State emissions budgets, variability limits, and assurance
levels would also apply to the five states that would be added to the
Group 3 trading program in this rulemaking.
In this proposal, the EPA is presenting the proposed preset State
ozone season NOX emissions budgets for covered EGUs in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee for the control
periods in 2025 through 2029. For all five states, starting with the
2025 control period, the State emissions budgets would reflect
emissions reductions achievable through optimization of installed
controls and installation of new state-of-the-art combustion controls.
In addition, for Arizona but not for the other four states, the
emissions reductions achievable through the installation and operation
of new SCR controls would be phased in starting with the preset and
dynamic budgets for the 2027 control periods and would be fully
reflected in the preset and dynamic budgets for 2028 and later control
periods. As noted previously, the EPA is not proposing changes in the
methodologies used to establish the preset or dynamic State emissions
budgets, the variability limits, or the assurance levels. The EPA is
not aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative
approach in extending these provisions to these five additional states.
Rather, the EPA is requesting comment on the preset State ozone season
NOX emissions budgets calculated using these methodologies.
The preset State emissions budgets for control periods 2025-2029 are
presented in Table VII.A.2-1.
[[Page 12708]]
Table VII.A.2-1--Proposed Preset State Emissions Budgets, 2025-2029
[tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 8,195 5,814 4,913 3,949 3,949
Iowa............................ 9,752 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,077
Kansas.......................... 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763
New Mexico...................... 2,211 2,008 2,008 2,008 2,008
Tennessee....................... 3,983 3,983 2,666 2,130 1,198
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
Under the Group 3 trading program, in advance of each control
period, a portion of each State's emissions budget for the control
period is reserved as a set-aside for potential allocation to new units
and the unreserved portion of the budget is then allocated among the
state's existing units. If there are existing units in areas of Indian
country within a State's borders not subject to the State's SIP
authority, allocations to those units are made through Indian country
existing unit set-asides.\155\ After each control period, the new unit
set-aside is allocated among any units qualifying for allocations
within the State's borders (including areas of Indian country) and any
remaining allowances are reallocated among the existing units. In
almost all cases, the allocations to set-asides, to existing units, and
to new units are made according to procedures laid out in the
regulations at 40 CFR 97.1010 through 97.1012. The exception is that
for control periods where the final State emissions budgets are
established in the related rulemaking--e.g., the 2025 control period--
the set-asides and allocations to existing units are also established
in the related rulemaking, using the same allocation procedure
applicable to later control periods. This same system for allocating
allowances from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan would also apply to the
five states that would be added to the Group 3 trading program in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ The EPA is aware of four existing EGUs in Indian country
that would be covered under this rulemaking's proposed expansion of
the Group 3 trading program: South Point Units A and B in the Fort
Mojave Reservation within Arizona's borders, and Four Corners Units
4 and 5 in the Navajo Reservation within New Mexico's borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the same methodology used to determine the percentages of
the budgets set aside for new units for other states in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is proposing that the percentages of the
budgets set aside for new units for the five proposed additional states
would be the default of 5 percent for each of the states for all
control periods, except for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and
2026, for which the percentage would be 11 percent. The EPA is also
presenting the proposed unit-level allocations to existing units in the
newly added states for the 2025 control period. The methodology and
procedures used to determine new unit set-aside percentages and unit-
level allocations are described in section VI.B.9. of the preamble to
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and in the ``Addendum to the Allowance
Allocation Under the Final Rule TSD for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan'' TSD available in the docket for this action. The EPA's
allocations and allocation procedures apply for the 2025 control
period, and, by default, for subsequent control periods unless and
until a State or tribe provides state- or tribe-determined allowance
allocations under an approved SIP revision or Tribal implementation
plan.\156\ The EPA is taking comment only on the data inputs (e.g.,
corrections to the heat input value used for a particular unit) used in
applying the allowance allocation methodology for existing units and on
the resulting existing unit allocations proposed for the five proposed
additional states. The EPA is not proposing changes in the
methodologies used for allowance allocation and for establishing set-
asides determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is not
aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach
in extending these provisions to these five additional states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ The options for states to submit SIP revisions that would
replace the EPA's default allowance allocations are discussed in
sections VII.C.1., VII.C.2., and VII.C.3. of this document.
Similarly, for a covered area of Indian country not subject to a
State's CAA implementation planning authority, a tribe could elect
to work with the EPA under the Tribal Authority Rule to develop a
full or partial Tribal implementation plan under which the tribe
would determine allowance allocations that would replace the EPA's
default allocations for subsequent control periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
In general, sources in the proposed additional states would face
the same compliance requirements as sources in states already covered
by the Group 3 trading program, but the EPA is proposing three
exceptions. The first exception concerns the timing with which elements
of the selected emissions control strategy are reflected in the State
emissions budgets. As discussed in section VI. of this document, the
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable for the State emissions
budgets to reflect emissions reductions achievable from new combustion
controls starting in the 2025 control period and emissions reductions
achievable from new SCR controls phased in over the 2027-2028 control
periods. These proposed timing determinations, which are necessarily
later than the corresponding timing determinations for sources in
states already covered by the Group 3 trading program, would be
reflected in the preset and dynamic State emissions budgets for the
proposed additional states, as discussed in section VII.A.2. of this
document.
The second exception concerns the timing of the application of the
backstop daily NOX emissions rate provisions. For units in
the proposed additional states with existing SCR controls, the EPA
proposes that these provisions would apply starting in the 2026 control
period, which would be the units' second control period in the revised
Group 3 trading program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR
controls, the backstop rate provision would apply in the second control
period in which such controls are operated, but not later than the 2030
control period. These proposed schedules would reflect the same
principles used to determine the schedules for units with and without
existing SCR controls in the states already in the program. The
backstop rate provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR
controls in Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units
choose to install such controls, in which case the backstop rate
provisions would apply starting in the second control period in which
such controls are operated) because the emissions control stringency
identified as appropriate for those states to address the states' good
neighbor obligations
[[Page 12709]]
does not include the installation of new SCR controls.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is
proposing to make technical corrections to the backstop rate
provisions to ensure that the provisions would not inadvertently
apply to units without existing SCR controls in any State for which
the EPA's identified emissions control stringency does not include
the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third exception concerns the timing of the application of the
maximum controlled baseline provisions which potentially cap allowance
allocations to individual units. For units in the proposed additional
states with existing SCR controls, the EPA proposes that these
provisions would apply starting in the 2025 control period, which would
be the units' first full control period in the revised Group 3 trading
program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR controls, the
maximum controlled baseline provisions would apply starting with the
2028 control period, which would be the first year in which the Arizona
State emissions budget would fully reflect the emissions reductions
achievable through the installation of new SCR controls. Again, these
proposed schedules would reflect the same principles used to determine
the schedules for units with and without existing SCR controls in the
states already in the program. The maximum controlled baseline
provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR controls in
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units choose to
install such controls) because the emissions control stringency
identified for those states as necessary to address the states' good
neighbor obligations does not include the installation of new SCR
controls.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is
proposing to make technical corrections to the maximum controlled
baseline provisions to ensure that the provisions would not
inadvertently apply to units without existing SCR controls in any
State for which the EPA's identified emissions control stringency
does not include the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on the proposed timing of the backstop
daily NOX emissions rate provisions and the maximum
controlled baseline provisions for sources in the proposed additional
states.
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025
Control Period
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA created an initial bank
of 2023 Group 3 allowances available to sources in states newly added
to the Group 3 trading program by converting banked 2017-2022 Group 2
allowances. Similarly, in this rulemaking the EPA proposes to create an
initial bank of 2025 Group 3 allowances available to sources in the
proposed additional states by converting banked 2017-2024 Group 2
allowances. The target quantity of banked 2025 Group 3 allowances to be
created would be 21 percent of the sum of the 2025 State emissions
budgets of the newly added states. The allowances to be converted would
be all 2017-2024 Group 2 allowances held in the facility accounts of
sources in the newly added states as of the conversion date, which is
proposed to be 45 days after the effective date of a final rule in this
rulemaking. The conversion ratio would be the total quantity of 2017-
2024 Group 2 allowances being converted divided by the target quantity
of 2025 Group 3 allowances being created, but not less than 1.0.
The EPA's rationale for proposing to create an initial allowance
bank available to the sources in newly added states is generally the
same as the rationale for creating the similar bank under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. The limited differences between the two bank
creation processes are attributable to changes in circumstances and are
fully consistent with that rationale. First, because the emissions
reductions achievable through installation of combustion controls would
be reflected in the budgets for the newly added States' first control
period in the program, the allowance bank target would be based on the
first year's budgets rather than the second year's budgets. Second,
because the EPA expects that the effective date of a final rule will
not fall partway through an ozone season, there is no need in this
proposal to plan for prorating of the allowance bank target quantity.
Finally, because the sources in the newly added states would represent
a minority of the sources currently participating in the Group 2
trading program, this proposal would not convert Group 2 allowances
held in general accounts. For further discussion of the rationale for
the proposed bank creation, see section VI.B.12.b. of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble.
In addition to providing for the creation of an initial Group 3
allowance bank through the conversion of banked Group 2 allowances, the
EPA is also proposing an adjustment to the Group 3 trading program's
bank recalibration provisions for the 2025 control period to coordinate
those provisions with the proposed addition of the five additional
states. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to exclude the five newly
added states' 2025 budgets when calculating the bank ceiling target
used to determine whether any bank recalibration for the 2025 control
period will occur. The reason for this proposed change is that because
the initial bank creation process described in the preceding paragraphs
of this section (section VII.A.5. of this document) would separately
create a quantity of banked allowances for 2025 of up to 21 percent of
the newly added states' emissions budgets, to ensure that the overall
quantity of banked allowances available for use in the entire Group 3
trading program in the 2025 control period is no more than 21 percent
of the emissions budgets of all states covered by the program in 2025,
the bank ceiling target used in the bank recalibration process for
other banked allowances carried over into the 2025 control period in
the Group 3 trading program would need to be limited to 21 percent of
the budgets for the states other than the newly added states. For 2026
and later control periods, the bank ceiling target will be calculated
for all states in the Group 3 trading program using the State emissions
budgets for all covered states.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed creation of an initial
Group 3 allowance bank and the proposed adjustment to the Group 3
allowance bank recalibration for the 2025 control period.
B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
As summarized in section II.B. of this document, the EPA finalized
requirements for emissions unit types in the following nine non-EGU
industries (industrial sources) in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan: RICE
in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement
Product Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product
Manufacturing; boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing,
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Mills; and combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste
Combustors and Incinerators. The EPA determined these are the most
impactful types of units in the relevant industries and that emissions
reductions are achievable with the control technologies identified in
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
further discussed in the Final Non-EGU Sectors TSD. The rationale
behind the applicability criteria, emissions limits, and additional
regulatory requirements for each industry can also be found in
[[Page 12710]]
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
emissions control requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for
non-EGU sources apply only during the ozone season (May through
September) each year.
In this document, the EPA proposes to extend these regulatory
requirements to affected units within the State of Arizona under the
same rationale provided in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These
proposed FIP requirements for Arizona apply to both new and existing
emissions units in the State. This approach will ensure that all new
and existing emissions units in Arizona that meet the applicability
criteria will be subject to the same good neighbor requirements that
apply to new and existing units under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
for other covered states, in a manner that is wholly consistent with
the determination of significant contribution and interference with
maintenance at Step 3 (see section VI. of this document). Applying this
same uniform set of control requirements will also avoid creating,
inadvertently or intentionally, any incentives to shift production (and
therefore emissions) from an existing non-EGU source to a new non-EGU
source of the same type but lacking the relevant emissions control
requirements either within a linked State or in another linked state,
including the State of Arizona. The rationale behind the applicability
criteria, emissions limits, and additional regulatory requirements for
each industry can be found in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
The EPA does not propose to make any changes in the non-EGU
requirements that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as
applicable to this one additional state. (The EPA does propose to make
certain corrections in the regulatory text as applicable in all states
that are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU
provisions, as discussed in section X. of this document.) The EPA
proposes to extend these requirements to cover one additional state,
Arizona. The EPA is not aware of any circumstances that would justify
an alternative approach in extending these provisions to Arizona, which
were already finalized to apply in other covered states on a uniform
basis. However, the public is invited to comment on the proposed
application of these requirements in Arizona.
Similar to the EPA's adjustment in the compliance schedule for
EGUs, the EPA proposes that compliance with non-EGU requirements in
Arizona can be accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season. This
is 1 year later than the onset of these compliance obligations for
states that currently are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
This reflects findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan that all non-
EGU emissions control strategies can generally be implemented within a
3-year timeframe. Three years from when this proposal may be finalized
in 2024 roughly correlates to the 2027 ozone season. Respecting the
potential need for compliance extensions beyond this ozone season, this
proposal likewise includes the availability of compliance extensions
under 40 CFR 52.40(d) (as well as the availability of alternative
emissions limits under 40 CFR 52.40(e)). The dates associated with
filing applications under these provisions, as well as for making other
filings and demonstrations in association with compliance with the non-
EGU requirements, are proposed to be adjusted from the dates finalized
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and generally are proposed to align
with the 2027 ozone season. (The Agency anticipates and acknowledges
that the dates associated for compliance in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan for other states where that rule is currently stayed pending
judicial review will likewise need to be reviewed and adjusted through
rulemaking action.) The Agency invites comment on its proposal that
compliance with emissions limits for covered non-EGU sources in Arizona
will be required beginning on May 1, 2027.
C. Submitting a SIP
Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, a State may submit a SIP at
any time to address CAA requirements that are covered by a FIP, and if
the EPA approves the SIP submission it would replace the FIP, in whole
or in part, as appropriate. As discussed in this section, states may
opt for one of several alternatives that the EPA has provided to take
over all or portions of the FIP. However, as discussed in greater
detail further in this section of the document, the EPA also recognizes
that states retain the discretion to develop SIPs to replace a FIP
under approaches that differ from those the EPA finalizes.
The EPA has established certain specialized provisions for
replacing FIPs with SIPs within all the CSAPR trading programs,
including the use of so-called ``abbreviated SIPs'' and ``full SIPs,''
see 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and (5) and (b)(4), (5), (8), (9), (11), and
(12); 40 CFR 52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i). For a State to remove all FIP
provisions through an approved SIP revision, a State would need to
address all required reductions addressed by the FIP for that state,
i.e., reductions achieved through both EGU control and non-EGU control,
as applicable to that state. Additionally, tribes in Indian country
within the geographic scope of this rule may elect to work with the EPA
under the Tribal Authority Rule to replace the FIP for areas of Indian
country, in whole or in part, with a Tribal implementation plan or
reasonably severable portions of a Tribal implementation plan.
Consistent with the options provided to states included in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, under the FIPs for the five states in this
proposed rule whose EGUs are required to participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA proposes
to offer ``abbreviated'' and ``full'' SIP submission options for
states. An ``abbreviated SIP'' would allow a State to submit a SIP
revision that establishes state-determined allowance allocation
provisions replacing the default FIP allocation provisions but leaving
the remaining FIP provisions in place. A ``full SIP'' would allow a
State to adopt a trading program meeting certain requirements that
allow sources in the State to continue to use the EPA-administered
trading program through an approved SIP revision, rather than a FIP. In
addition, as under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and past CSAPR
rulemakings, the EPA proposes that newly added states have the option
to adopt state-determined allowance allocations for existing units for
the second control period under this rule--in this case, the 2026
control period--through streamlined SIP revisions. See 76 FR 48326-
48332 for additional discussion of full and abbreviated SIP options;
see also 40 CFR 52.38(b).
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading Program
As with the start of past CSAPR rulemakings, the EPA proposes the
option to allow a newly added State to use a similar process to submit
a SIP revision establishing allowance allocations for existing EGU
units in the State for the second control period of the new
requirements, i.e., in 2026, to replace the EPA-determined default
allocations. A State would have to submit a letter to the EPA by 15
days after the effective date of a final rule in this rulemaking
indicating its intent to submit a complete SIP revision by April 1,
2025. The SIP revision would provide, in an EPA-prescribed format, a
list of existing units within the State and their allocations for the
2026 control period. If a State does not submit a letter of intent to
submit a SIP revision, or if a State submits a timely
[[Page 12711]]
letter of intent but fails to submit a SIP revision, the EPA-determined
default allocations would be recorded by July 1, 2025. If a State
submits a timely letter of intent followed by a timely SIP revision
that is approved, the approved SIP revision allocations would be
recorded by October 1, 2025.
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under EGU
Trading Program
For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA also proposes that
newly added states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program could submit a SIP revision that makes changes only to
the allowance allocation provisions while relying on the FIP for the
remaining provisions of the EGU trading program.\159\ This abbreviated
SIP option would allow states to tailor the FIP to their individual
choices while maintaining the FIP-based structure of the trading
program. To ensure the availability of allowance allocations for units
in any Indian country within a State not covered by the State's CAA
implementation planning authority, if the State chose to replace the
EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA
would continue to administer any portion of each State emissions budget
reserved as a new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit
set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option,
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP submission deadline for this type of revision would be
December 1, 2025, if the State intends for the SIP revision to be
effective beginning with the 2027 control period. For states that
submit this type of SIP revision, the deadline to submit state-
determined allocations beginning with the 2027 control period under an
approved SIP would be June 1, 2026, and the deadline for the EPA to
record those allocations would be July 1, 2026. Similarly, a State
could submit a SIP revision beginning with the 2028 control period and
beyond by December 1, 2026, with State allocations for the 2028 control
period due June 1, 2027, and the EPA's recordation of the allocations
due by July 1, 2027.
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA proposes that newly
added states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program could choose to replace the Federal EGU trading program with an
integrated State EGU trading program through an approved SIP
revision.\160\ Under this full SIP option, a State could submit a SIP
revision that makes changes only to modify the EPA-determined default
allocations while adopting identical provisions for the remaining
portions of the EGU trading program. This SIP option would allow states
to replace these FIP provisions with state-based SIP provisions while
continuing participation in the larger regional trading program. As
with the abbreviated SIP option discussed previously, to ensure the
availability of allowance allocations for units in any Indian country
within a State not covered by the State's CAA implementation planning
authority, if the State chooses to replace the EPA's default
allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA would continue
to administer any portion of each State emissions budget reserved as a
new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option,
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadlines for this type of SIP revision would be the same as the
deadlines for abbreviated SIP revisions. For the SIP-based program to
start with the 2027 control period, the SIP revision deadline would be
December 1, 2025, the deadline to submit state-determined allocations
for the 2027 control period under an approved SIP would be June 1,
2026, and the deadline for the EPA to record those allocations would be
July 1, 2026, and so on.
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
States can submit SIP revisions to replace the FIP that achieve the
necessary EGU emissions reductions but do not use the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. For a transport
SIP revision that does not use the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA would evaluate the transport SIP
revision based on the particular control strategies selected and
whether the strategies as a whole provide adequate and enforceable
provisions ensuring that the necessary emissions reductions (i.e.,
reductions equal to or greater than what the Group 3 trading program
will achieve) will be achieved. To address the applicable CAA
requirements, the SIP revision should include the following general
elements: (1) a comprehensive baseline 2023 statewide NOX
emissions inventory (which includes existing control requirements),
which should be consistent with the 2023 emissions inventory that the
EPA used to calculate the required State budget in this final proposed
rule (unless the State can explain the discrepancy); (2) a list and
description of control measures to satisfy the State emissions
reduction obligation and a demonstration showing when each measure
would be implemented to meet the 2025 and successive compliance
deadlines; (3) fully-adopted State rules providing for such
NOX controls during the ozone season; (4) for EGUs larger
than 25 MW, monitoring and reporting under 40 CFR part 75, and for
other units, monitoring and reporting procedures sufficient to
demonstrate that sources are complying with the SIP (see 40 CFR part
51, subpart K (``source surveillance'' requirements)); and (5) a
projected inventory demonstrating that State measures along with
Federal measures will achieve the necessary emissions reductions in
time to meet the 2025 and successive compliance deadlines (e.g.,
enforceable reductions commensurate with installation of SCR on coal-
fired EGUs by the 2027 ozone season). The SIPs must meet procedural
requirements under the Act, such as the requirements for public
hearing, be adopted by the appropriate State board or authority, and
establish by a practically enforceable regulation or permit(s) a
schedule and date for each affected source or source category to
achieve compliance. Once the State has made a SIP submission, the EPA
will evaluate the submission(s) for completeness before acting on the
SIP submission. EPA's criteria for determining completeness of a SIP
submission are codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
For further background information on considerations for replacing
a FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76
FR 48326).
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source Control
Requirements
Just as with the EGU requirements discussed in section VII.C.1.-4.
of this document, the EPA's finalization of this proposed interstate
ozone transport FIP for Arizona would in no way affect the ability of
the State to submit, for review and approval, a SIP that replaces the
requirements of the FIP with State requirements. To replace the non-EGU
portion of the FIP in a state, the State's SIP submission must provide
adequate provisions to prohibit NOX emissions that
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The State SIP submission
must demonstrate that the
[[Page 12712]]
emissions reductions required by the SIP would continue to ensure that
significant contribution and interference with maintenance from that
State has been eliminated through permanent and enforceable measures.
The non-EGU requirements of the FIP would remain in place in each
covered State until a State's SIP submission has been approved by the
EPA to replace the FIP.
The most straightforward method for a State to submit a
presumptively approvable SIP revision to replace the non-EGU portion of
the FIPs for the State would be to provide a SIP revision that includes
emissions limits at an equivalent or greater level of stringency than
is specified for non-EGU sources meeting the applicability criteria and
associated compliance assurance provisions for each of the unit types
identified in section VI.C. of this document. However, states are also
free to develop alternative approaches to eliminating significant
contribution and interference with maintenance in other states, so long
as they are shown to be equivalent to the Federal plan they replace.
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan contains a more detailed discussion of
factors and considerations associated with replacing a good neighbor
FIP. See 88 FR at 36842-43.
D. Title V Permitting
As with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, as well as other previous
good neighbor rules, like the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the Revised
CSAPR Update, this proposed rule would not establish any permitting
requirements independent of those under Title V of the CAA and the
regulations implementing Title V, 40 CFR parts 70 and 71.\161\ All
major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are
required to apply for title V operating permits that include emissions
limitations and other conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with
the applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of
the applicable SIP. CAA sections 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a)
and 7661c(a). The ``applicable requirements'' that must be addressed in
title V permits are defined in the title V regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and
71.2 (definition of ``applicable requirement'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Part 70 addresses requirements for State title V programs,
and Part 71 governs the Federal title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units subject to
this final rule, most if not all of the sources at which the units are
located are already subject to title V permitting requirements and
already possess a title V operating permit. For sources subject to
title V, the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
that are applicable to them under the FIPs proposed in this action
would be ``applicable requirements'' under title V and therefore must
be addressed in the title V permits. For example, EGU requirements
concerning designated representatives, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions,
the compliance assurance provisions, and liability, and for non-EGUs,
the emissions limits and compliance requirements are, to the extent
relevant to each source, ``applicable requirements'' that must be
addressed in the permits.
Consistent with EPA's approach under the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the applicable requirements resulting from the FIPs generally
would have to be incorporated into affected sources' existing title V
permits either pursuant to the provisions for reopening for cause (40
CFR 70.7(f) and 71.7(f)), significant modifications (40 CFR 70.7(e)(4))
or the standard permit renewal provisions (40 CFR 70.7(c) and
71.7(c)).\162\ For sources newly subject to title V that would be
affected sources under the FIPs, the initial title V permit issued
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a) would address the final FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ A permit is reopened for cause if any new applicable
requirements (such as those under a FIP) become applicable to an
affected source with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If
the remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such new applicable
requirements will be added to the permit during permit renewal. See
40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was the case in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the new and
amended FIPs would impose no independent permitting requirements and
the title V permitting process would impose no additional burden on
sources already required to be permitted under title V. More detailed
title V permitting considerations for both EGUs and non-EGUs are
provided in section VI.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
Demographic proximity analyses allow one to assess the potentially
vulnerable populations residing nearby affected facilities as an
indicator of exposure and the potential for adverse health impacts that
may occur at a local scale due to economic activity at a given location
including noise, odors, traffic, and emissions such as NO2,
covered under this EPA action and not modeled elsewhere in this EIA.
Although baseline proximity analyses are presented here for the
supplemental rule, several important caveats should be noted. In most
areas, emissions are not expected to increase from the rulemaking, so
most communities nearby affected facilities should experience decreases
in exposure from directly emitted pollutants. However, facilities may
vary widely in terms of the impacts on populations they already pose to
nearby populations. In addition, proximity to affected facilities does
not capture variation in baseline exposure across communities, nor does
it indicate that any exposures or impacts will occur and should not be
interpreted as a direct measure of exposure or impact. These points
limit the usefulness of proximity analyses when attempting to answer
question from EPA's Environmental Justice Technical Guidance.
Demographic proximity analyses were performed for two subsets of
facilities affected by the supplemental rule:
Electricity Generating Unit (EGU): Comparison of the
percentage of various populations (race/ethnicity, age, education,
poverty status, income, and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered
EGU sources to average national levels.
Non-EGU (non-electric generating units, or other
stationary emissions sources): Comparison of the percentage of various
populations (race/ethnicity, age, education, poverty status, income,
and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered non-EGU sources to
average national levels.
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
The current analysis identified all census blocks with centroids
within a 5 km, 10 km and 50 km radius of the latitude/longitude
location of each facility, and then linked each block with census-based
demographic data.\163\ The total population within a specific radius
around each facility is the sum of the population for every census
block within that specified radius, based on each block's population
provided by the decennial Census.\164\ Statistics on race,
[[Page 12713]]
ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic
isolation were obtained from the Census' 2015-2019 American Community
Survey 5-year averages. These data are provided at the block group
level. For the purposes of this analysis, the demographic
characteristics of a given block group--that is, the percentage of
people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age
groups (<18, 18-64, and >64), the percentage without a high school
diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the
percentage that are linguistically isolated--are presumed to also
describe each census block located within that block group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Five km and 50 km radii are the default distances
currently used for proximity analyses. The 5 km distance is the
shortest distance that should be chosen to avoid excessive
demographic uncertainty and provides information on near-field
populations. The 50 km distance offers a sub-regional perspective.
The 10 km distance was added to this analysis as few to no people
were within 5 km of some affected facilities.
\164\ The location of the Census block centroid is used to
determine if the entire population of the Census block is assumed to
be within the specified radius. It is unknown how sensitive these
results may be to different methods of population estimation, such
as aerial apportionment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to facility-specific demographics, the demographic
composition of the total population within the specified radius (e.g.,
50 km) for all facilities as a whole was also computed (e.g., all EGUs
or all non-EGU facilities). In calculating the total populations, to
avoid double-counting, each census block population was only counted
once. That is, if a census block was located within the selected radius
(i.e., 50 km) for multiple facilities, the population of that census
block was only counted once in the total population. Finally, this
analysis compares the demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5
km, 10 km, and 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide
population.
For this action, a demographic analysis was conducted for nine EGU
facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km, 10 km,
and 50 km radius distances (Table VIII.A.1-1). Approximately 7 million
people live within 50 km of these nine EGU facilities, representing
roughly 2 percent of the 328 million total population of the U.S.
Within 50km of EGU facilities, there is a higher Hispanic/Latino
population than the national average (26 percent versus 19 percent) and
a higher Native American population than the national average (1.9
percent versus 0.7 percent). Other demographics of the population
within 50km of the EGU facilities are similar to the national averages.
Approximately 166 thousand and 716 thousand people live within 5 km and
10 km of the EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of
the population within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities are very
similar. Within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities, there is a higher
Hispanic/Latino population than the national average (60 percent within
5 km and 53 percent within 10 km versus 19 percent nationwide) and a
higher Native American population than the national average (5.5
percent within 5 km and 3.5 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent
nationwide). The populations within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities
have a higher percentage of people under the age of 18 compared to the
national average (29 percent within both 5km and 10km versus 23 percent
nationwide). The percent of people living below the poverty level is
higher than the national average (24 percent within 5 km and 23 percent
within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide). The percent of people over
the age of 25 without a high school diploma is higher than the national
average (18 percent within 5 km and 16 percent within 10 km versus 12
percent nationwide), and the percent of people living in linguistic
isolation is higher than the national average (12 percent within 5 km
and 10 percent within 10 km versus 5 percent nationwide).
Table VIII.A.1-1--Population Demographics for the Nine EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls Due
to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average \1\
Demographic group ---------------------------------------------------------------
National
5 km 10 km 50 km average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
White....................................... 23 28 59 60
African American............................ 9 10 7 12
Native American............................. 5.5 3.5 1.9 0.7
Other and Multiracial....................... 3 5 6 8
Hispanic or Latino \2\...................... 60 53 26 19
Age:
0-17 Years Old.............................. 29 29 24 23
18-64 Years Old............................. 61 62 61 62
>=65 Years Old.............................. 9 9 15 16
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level....... 24 23 14 13
Education:
>= 25 Years Old Without a High School 18 16 8 12
Diploma....................................
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation....... 12 10 5 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................ 165,712 716,296 6,742,898 328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
For this action, a demographic analysis was also conducted for two
non-EGU facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km,
10 km, and 50 km radius distances (TableVIII.A.2-1). Approximately 218
thousand people live within 50 km of these two non-EGU facilities,
representing roughly 0.07 percent of the 328 million total population
of the U.S. Within 50km of the two non-EGU facilities, there is a
higher White population than the national average (72 percent versus 60
percent), and there is a higher Native American population than the
national average (3.8 percent
[[Page 12714]]
versus 0.7 percent). There is also a higher population over the age of
65 than the national average (24 percent versus 16 percent).
Approximately 200 and 3,000 people live within 5 km and 10 km of the
non-EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of the
population within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities are similar.
Within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities, there is a higher White
population than the national average (87 percent within 5km and 88
percent within 10 km versus 60 percent nationwide) and there is a
higher Native American population than the national average (2.2
percent within 5 km and 1.0 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent
nationwide). Concerning the age distribution within 5 and 10km of the
two non-EGU facilities, the percent of people aged 65 or older is
higher than the national average (31 percent within 5 km and 36 percent
within 10 km versus 16 percent nationwide). Additionally, the percent
of people living below the poverty level within 5 km and 10 km of the
non-EGU facilities is higher than the national average (18 percent
within 5 km and 17 percent within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide).
Table VIII.A.2-1--Population Demographics for the Two Non-EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls
Due to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average \1\
Demographic group ---------------------------------------------------------------
National
5 km 10 km 50 km average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
White....................................... 87 88 72 60
African American............................ 0 0 1 12
Native American............................. 2.2 1.0 3.8 0.7
Other and Multiracial....................... 4 4 5 8
Hispanic or Latino \2\...................... 7 7 19 19
Age:
0-17 Years Old.............................. 5 6 17 23
18-64 Years Old............................. 65 58 59 62
>=65 Years Old.............................. 31 36 24 16
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level....... 18 17 14 13
Education:
>=25 Years Old Without a High School Diploma 7 8 8 12
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation:...... 0 0 2 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................ 204 3,193 218,256 328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
For additional information on the EGU or non-EGU proximity
analyses, see section VII.3. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as well
as the memorandum Analysis of Demographic Factors For Populations
Living Near EGU and Non-EGU Facilities, in the rulemaking docket.
B. Outreach
Prior to this proposal and prior to proposal of the EPA's Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA initiated a public outreach effort to
gather input from stakeholder groups likely to be interested in this
action. Specifically, the EPA hosted an environmental justice webinar
on October 26, 2021, to share information about the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan and solicit feedback about potential environmental
justice considerations. The webinar was attended by over 180
individuals representing State governments, federally recognized
tribes, environmental NGOs, higher education institutions, industry,
and the EPA.\165\ Participants were invited to comment during the
webinar or provide written comments to a pre-regulatory docket. The
webinar was recorded and distributed to attendees after the event. The
key issues raised by interested parties is summarized in section
VIII.C. of the EPA's proposed Good Neighbor Plan Rulemaking, and the
EPA's response to these comments regarding environmental justice
considerations are available in section 6 of the Response To Comments
document for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.166 167
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ This does not constitute the EPA's Tribal consultation
under Executive Order 13175, which is described in section XI.F. of
this document.
\166\ 87 FR 20036 at 20153.
\167\ ``Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Response to Public Comments
on Proposed Rule'' at 837. Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668-1127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
In the EIA for this action, the EPA estimated the health and
climate benefits, compliance costs, and emissions changes that may
result from the proposed rule for the analysis period 2025 to 2044. The
estimated health and climate benefits and compliance costs are
presented in detail in the EIA. The EPA notes that for EGUs the
estimated benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with
fully operating existing SCRs during ozone season; fully operating
existing SNCRs during ozone season; installing state-of-the-art
combustion controls; imposing a backstop emissions rate on certain
units that lack SCR controls; and installing SCR and SNCR post-
combustion controls. The EPA also notes that for non-EGUs the estimated
health benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with
installing controls to meet the NOX emissions requirements
[[Page 12715]]
presented in section I.B. of this document.
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed this action's emissions budgets using
uniform control stringency represented by $1,800 per ton of
NOX (2016$) in 2025 and $11,000 per ton of NOX
(2016$) in 2027. For non-EGUs, the EPA developed an analytical
framework to determine which industries and emissions unit types to
include in a proposed Transport FIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS transport
obligations. A February 28, 2022, memorandum, titled ``Screening
Assessment of Potential Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and
Costs from Non-EGU Emissions Units for 2026,'' documents the analytical
framework used to identify industries and emissions unit types included
in the proposed FIP.
Table IX-1 provides the projected 2025 through 2030, 2035, 2040,
and 2044 EGU NOX ozone season emissions reductions for the
proposed rule. For additional information on emissions changes, see
Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 in the EIA.
Table IX-1--EGU Ozone Season NOX Emissions and Emissions Changes (Tons) for the Baseline Run and Proposed Rule
From 2025-2044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total emissions
Ozone season NOX (tons) -------------------------------- Change from
Baseline Proposal baseline run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025:
5 States.................................................... 23,701 22,243 -1,458
Other States................................................ 234,186 234,186 0
Nationwide.................................................. 257,887 256,428 -1,459
2026:
5 States.................................................... 23,701 22,243 -1,458
Other States................................................ 234,186 234,186 0
Nationwide.................................................. 257,887 256,428 -1,459
2027:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2028:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2029:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2030:
5 States.................................................... 16,184 15,427 -756
Other States................................................ 150,909 150,910 0
Nationwide.................................................. 167,093 166,337 -756
2035:
5 States.................................................... 5,967 5,453 -513
Other States................................................ 94,061 94,053 -8
Nationwide.................................................. 100,028 99,506 -521
2040:
5 States.................................................... 5,623 4,901 -722
Other States................................................ 77,971 78,010 39
Nationwide.................................................. 83,594 82,910 -683
2044:
5 States.................................................... 5,271 4,549 -722
Other States................................................ 71,506 71,506 0
Nationwide.................................................. 76,778 76,055 -722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The 5 States include Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The Other States include the
remaining states not covered by the proposal in the contiguous United States. Nationwide is the total of the 5
States and the Other States.
Table IX-2 provides a summary of the ozone season NOX
emissions reductions and costs for non-EGUs in Arizona starting in
2028. We estimated the emissions reductions and costs for 2026 and
assume compliance by 2028. The analysis in the EIA assumes that the
estimated reductions in 2028 will be the same in later years.
Table IX-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated Total
Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control Ozone season
technologies that Annual costs emissions
Industry/Industries Emissions unit type meet proposed (million reductions
emissions limits 2016$) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2- 4.3 329
Gas. Internal Combustion cycle Lean Burn).
Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12716]]
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed ozone season NOX emissions
reductions and the associated costs to the power sector using IPM and
its underlying data and inputs. For non-EGUs, the EPA prepared an
assessment summarized in the memorandum titled Non-EGU Applicability
Requirements and Estimated Emissions Reductions and Costs_Proposed
Supplemental, and the memorandum includes estimated emissions
reductions for the proposed rule.
Table IX-3 reflects the estimates of emissions reductions and the
changes in the cost of supplying electricity for the proposed rule for
EGUs and estimates of complying with the emissions requirements for
non-EGUs. The costs presented in Table IX-3 do not include monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
Table IX-3--Total Annual Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions (Ozone Season, Tons) and Compliance Costs (Million 2016$), 2025-2044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions reductions (ozone season, tons) Compliance costs (million 2016$)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs Non-EGUs Total EGUs Non-EGUs Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.................................................... 1,459 .............. 1,459 $1.0 .............. $1.0
2026.................................................... 1,459 .............. 1,459 1.0 .............. 1.0
2027.................................................... 1,245 .............. 1,245 3.4 .............. 3.4
2028.................................................... 1,245 329 1,574 3.4 $4.3 7.7
2029.................................................... 1,245 329 1,574 3.4 4.3 7.7
2030.................................................... 756 329 1,085 0.7 4.3 5.0
2035.................................................... 513 329 842 0.7 4.3 5.0
2040.................................................... 683 329 1,012 0.3 4.3 4.6
2044.................................................... 722 329 1,051 0.7 4.3 4.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposed supplemental rule, the EPA monetizes the health
benefits of avoided ozone and PM2.5-attributable premature
deaths and illnesses by multiplying a benefit per ton coefficient by
the expected State NOX ozone season and primary
PM2.5, NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions. The benefit per ton calculations for EGUs and non-EGUs have
been combined in Table IX-4.
Table IX-4--Estimated Monetized Health Benefits of Avoided Ozone and PM2.5-Attributable Premature Mortality and Illness for the Proposed Rule Emissions
Reductions (EGUs and Non-EGUs), 2025-2044: Monetized Benefits Quantified as Sum of Avoided Morbidity Health Effects and Avoided Long-Term Ozone and
PM2.5 Mortality
[3 Percent discount rate; million 2016$] a b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Ozone PM2.5 Combined total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................... $16 and $110......................... $32 and $69.......................... $48 and $180.
2026............................... $16 and $110......................... $32 and $69.......................... $48 and $180.
2027............................... $14 and $96.......................... $4.7 and $9.9........................ $19 and $110.
2028............................... $18 and $140......................... $8.3 and $17......................... $26 and $160.
2029............................... $18 and $140......................... $8.3 and $17......................... $26 and $160.
2030............................... $13 and $99.......................... $5.4 and $11......................... $18 and $110.
2031............................... $13 and $99.......................... $5.4 and $11......................... $18 and $110.
2032............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2033............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2034............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2035............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2036............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2037............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2038............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2039............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2040............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2041............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2042............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2043............................... $15 and $130......................... $6 and $12........................... $21 and $140.
2044............................... $15 and $130......................... $6 and $12........................... $21 and $140.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Values rounded to two significant figures.
b The benefits are associated with two point estimates from two different epidemiologic studies. The lower estimates includes ozone mortality estimated
using the pooled Katsouyanni et al. (2009), the Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) short-term risk estimates, and the Wu et al. (2020) long-term PM2.5
exposure mortality risk estimate. The higher estimates includes ozone mortality estimated using the Turner et al. (2016) long-term risk estimate and
the Pope et al. (2019) long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk estimate. Health benefits are discounted at a rate of 3 and 7 percent over the SAB-
recommended 20-year segmented lag. Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.
Table IX-5 shows the estimated monetary value of the estimated
changes in CO2 emissions from EGUs expected to occur over
2025-2044 for this proposed rule. The EPA estimated the dollar value of
the CO2-related effects
[[Page 12717]]
for each year between 2025 and 2044 by applying the SC-CO2
estimates to the estimated changes in CO2 emissions in the
corresponding year.
Table IX-5--Stream of Climate Benefits From EGU CO2 Emissions Reductions, 2025-2044
[Millions of 2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% 95th
Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................ $0.6 $2.1 $3.0 $6.2
2026............................................ 0.6 2.1 3.1 6.3
2027............................................ 0.5 1.5 2.2 4.6
2028............................................ 0.5 1.5 2.3 4.7
2029............................................ 0.5 1.6 2.3 4.8
2030............................................ 0.5 1.7 2.5 5.2
2031............................................ 0.6 1.8 2.5 5.3
2032............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2033............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2034............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2035............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2036............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2037............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2038............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2039............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2040............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2041............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2042............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2043............................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2044............................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.
The EPA calculates the monetized net benefits of the proposed rule
by subtracting the estimated monetized compliance costs from the
estimated monetized health and climate benefits. The benefits include
those to public health associated with reductions ozone and
PM2.5 concentrations, as well as those to climate associated
with reductions in GHG emissions. The EPA presents estimates of the PV
of the monetized benefits and costs over the 20-year period 2025 to
2044. To calculate the PV of the social net-benefits of the proposed
rule, annual benefits and costs are discounted to 2023 at 3 percent and
7 discount rates as recommended by OMB's Circular A-4. The EPA also
presents the EAV, which represents a flow of constant annual values
that, had they occurred in each year from 2025 to 2044, would yield a
sum equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical
cost or benefit for each year of the analysis. Table IX-6 provides the
comparison of benefits and costs in PV and EAV terms for the proposed
rule. Estimates in the table are presented as rounded values. For the
20-year period of 2025 to 2044, the PV of the net benefits, in 2016$
and discounted to 2023, is $270 and $1,800 million when using a 3
percent discount rate and $180 and $1,100 million when using a 7
percent discount rate. The EAV is $18 and $120 million per year when
using a 3 percent discount rate and $17 and $110 million when using a 7
percent discount rate.
Table IX-6--Summary of Present Values and Equivalent Annualized Values for the 2025-2044 Timeframe for Estimated Monetized Compliance Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule
[Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health benefits Climate Cost c Net benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------- benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.............................. $45 and $170.................. $38 and $140................. $1.9 $1.0 $0.9 $46 and $170................. $39 and $140.
2026.............................. $44 and $160.................. $35 and $130................. 1.9 1.0 0.9 $45 and $160................. $36 and $130.
2027.............................. $17 and $94................... $12 and $72.................. 1.4 3.0 2.6 $15 and $92.................. $11 and $71.
2028.............................. $23 and $140.................. $17 and $100................. 1.3 6.6 5.5 $17 and $130................. $13 and $99.
2029.............................. $22 and $130.................. $16 and $97.................. 1.3 6.4 5.1 $17 and $130................. $12 and $93.
2030.............................. $15 and $89................... $9.9 and $62................. 1.4 4.1 3.1 $12 and $87.................. $8.2 and $60.
2031.............................. $15 and $87................... $9.3 and $58................. 1.4 3.9 2.9 $12 and $84.................. $7.7 and $56.
2032.............................. $13 and $80................... $7.8 and $51................. -0.1 3.8 2.7 $9.0 and $76................. $5.0 and $48.
2033.............................. $13 and $78................... $7.3 and $47................. -0.1 3.7 2.5 $8.8 and $74................. $4.7 and $45.
2034.............................. $12 and $76................... $6.8 and $44................. -0.1 3.6 2.4 $8.5 and $72................. $4.4 and $42.
2035.............................. $12 and $74................... $6.4 and $41................. -0.1 3.5 2.2 $8.2 and $70................. $4.1 and $39.
2036.............................. $12 and $71................... $6.0 and $39................. -0.1 3.4 2.1 $8.0 and $68................. $3.8 and $360.
2037.............................. $11 and $69................... $5.6 and $36................. -0.1 3.3 1.9 $7.8 and $66................. $3.6 and $34.
2038.............................. $12 and $83................... $6.3 and $43................. -0.2 2.9 1.7 $9.0 and $80................. $4.4 and $41.
2039.............................. $12 and $81................... $5.9 and $40................. -0.2 2.8 1.5 $8.7 and $78................. $4.1 and $38.
2040.............................. $11 and $78................... $5.5 and $38................. -0.2 2.8 1.4 $8.4 and $75................. $3.9 and $36.
2041.............................. $11 and $76................... $5.1 and $35................. -0.2 2.7 1.4 $8.2 and $73................. $3.6 and $34.
2042.............................. $11 and $74................... $4.8 and $33................. -0.2 2.6 1.3 $8.0 and $71................. $3.4 and $31.
[[Page 12718]]
2043.............................. $12 and $79................... $4.8 and $31................. 0.0 2.8 1.3 $8.9 and $76................. $3.5 and $30.
2044.............................. $11 and $76................... $4.4 and $29................. 0.0 2.7 1.2 $8.6 and $74................. $3.2 and $28.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV 2025-2044.................. $330 and $1,900............... $210 and $1,200.............. 9.3 67 45 $270 and $1,800.............. $180 and $1,100.
EAV 2025-2044................. $22 and $130.................. $20 and $110................. 0.6 4.5 4.2 $18 and $120................. $17 and $110.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text
This section describes proposed amendments to the regulatory text
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to apply the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The proposed CFR amendments relating
to EGUs and to non-EGUs are addressed in section X.A. and section X.B.
of this document, respectively. In section X.C. of this document, the
EPA describes additional proposed CFR amendments that would make
technical corrections or clarifications to the regulatory text as
finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has included
documents showing the proposed amendments in redline-strikeout format
in the docket for this proposed action.
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to
EGUs in Additional States
The primary CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good
Neighbor Plans requirements to EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee would be made in the FIP provisions addressing
states' good neighbor obligations related to ozone in 40 CFR part 52 as
well as in the regulations for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG. In addition,
amendments to address the transition of the EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee from the Group 2 trading program to the Group 3 trading
program would be made in the regulations for the Group 2 trading
program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE, and conforming revisions
would be made in the regulations for the Group 1 trading program in 40
CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB.
The FIP provisions that identify the states whose EGU sources must
participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1, Group 2,
and Group 3 trading programs with respect to specified control periods
to address transported ozone pollution are set forth at Sec.
52.38(b)(2). The proposed expansion of the applicability of the Group 3
trading program to sources in the five newly added states starting with
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E). The proposed end to the applicability of the Group
2 trading program (with the exception of certain provisions) for
sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee after the 2024 control period
would be implemented at Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A).
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA retained several
previously established options for states to revise their SIPs to
modify or replace the FIPs applicable to their sources while continuing
to use the Group 3 trading program as the mechanism for meeting the
states' good neighbor obligations. Under this proposal, the provision
at Sec. 52.38(b)(10) establishing an option for a State to replace
allowance allocations for a single control period would be amended to
make the option available for the five newly added states for the 2026
control period,\168\ with coordinated revisions to the Group 3 trading
program regulations as discussed later in this section X.A. The
provisions at Sec. 52.38(b)(11) and (12) establishing options for a
State to adopt an abbreviated or full SIP revision starting with the
2025 control period would remain available to states already covered by
the Group 3 trading program and would be amended to make the options
available to the newly added states starting with the 2027 control
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ The provision as it exists before the proposed amendments
is obsolete because no State elected to use the provision to
establish state-determined allocations for the 2024 control period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general FIP provisions applicable to all states covered by this
rule as set forth in Sec. 52.38(b)(2) would be replicated in the
state-specific subparts of 40 CFR part 52 for each of the five states
that the EPA is proposing to add to the Group 3 trading program.\169\
In each such state-specific CFR subpart, provisions would be added
indicating that sources in the State would be required to participate
in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program with
respect to emissions starting in 2025. Provisions would also be added
repeating the substance of Sec. 52.38(b)(13)(i), which provides that
the Administrator's full and unconditional approval of a full SIP
revision correcting the same SIP deficiency that is the basis for a FIP
promulgated in this rulemaking would cause the FIP to no longer apply
to sources subject to the State's CAA implementation planning
authority, and Sec. 52.38(b)(14)(ii), which provides the EPA with
authority to complete recordation of EPA-determined allowance
allocations for any control period for which the EPA has already
started such recordation notwithstanding the approval of a State's SIP
revision establishing state-determined allowance allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ See proposed Sec. Sec. 52.154(a) (Arizona), 52.840(b)
(Iowa), 52.882(b) (Kansas), 52.1641 (New Mexico), and 52.2240(e)
(Tennessee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each of the three states that the EPA is proposing to remove
from the Group 2 trading program, the provisions of the state-specific
CFR subparts indicating that sources in the State are required to
participate in that trading program would be revised to end that
requirement with respect to emissions after 2024, and a further
provision would be added repeating the substance of Sec.
52.38(b)(14)(iii), which identifies certain provisions that continue to
apply to sources and allowances notwithstanding discontinuation of a
trading program with respect to a particular state. In addition,
obsolete text concerning the unexercised option to adopt full SIP
revisions to replace the FIPs issued under the CSAPR Update would be
removed.
To implement the geographic expansion of the Group 3 trading
program and the trading budgets
[[Page 12719]]
proposed under the new and amended FIPs in this rulemaking, several
sections of the Group 3 trading program regulations would be amended.
Revisions identifying the applicable control periods, the starting
years for certain allocation provisions, the deadlines for
certification of monitoring systems, and the deadlines for commencement
of quarterly reporting for sources in the newly added states would be
made at Sec. Sec. 97.1006(c)(3), 97.1012, 97.1030(b)(1), and
97.1034(d)(2)(i), respectively. Revisions identifying the new or
revised budgets, new unit set-aside percentages, and variability limits
under the Group 3 trading program for the control periods starting in
2025 for the newly added states would be made at Sec. 97.1010, while
revisions ending the corresponding provisions under the Group 2 trading
program for control periods after 2024 would be made at Sec. 97.810.
Revisions to Sec. 97.1021 would establish the schedule for recording
unit-level allocations of allowances to sources in the newly added
states for the 2025 and 2026 control periods, including the schedule
that would apply with respect to allocations for the 2026 control
period if a State exercises the proposed option to establish state-
determined allocations for that control period.
The proposed creation of an additional Group 3 allowance bank for
the 2025 control period through the conversion of banked 2017-2024
Group 2 allowances as discussed in section VII.A.5. of this document
would be implemented at a new Sec. 97.826(f)(1).\170\ Related
provisions addressing the use of Group 3 allowances to satisfy
compliance obligations under the Group 1 trading program or the Group 2
trading program arising after the conversion would be implemented at
new Sec. Sec. 97.526(e)(4) and 97.826(g)(3), respectively. Related
provisions addressing delayed recordation of allocations of Group 1 or
Group 2 allowances after the conversion would be implemented at new
Sec. Sec. 97.526(d)(2)(iv) and 97.826(f)(2), respectively. A
coordinating amendment that excludes the emissions budgets of the newly
added states from the Group 3 allowance bank recalibration target for
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec. 97.1026(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ The provision currently designated as Sec. 97.826(f)
would be redesignated as Sec. 97.826(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA proposes to make conforming revisions to cross-
references necessitated by the other amendments already described at
Sec. 52.38(b)(14) and in several sections of the regulations for the
Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 trading programs.
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to
Non-EGUs in Additional States
The CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plans
requirements to non-EGUs in Arizona would be made in the FIP provisions
for non-EGUs promulgated in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in 40 CFR
52.40 through 52.46. A proposed amendment to Sec. 52.40(c)(2) would
extend applicability of the non-EGU requirements under all seven of
these CFR sections to Arizona emissions sources starting with the 2027
control period. This provision would be substantively replicated in the
state-specific subpart of 40 CFR part 52 for Arizona at proposed Sec.
52.154(b).
In addition, each provision in Sec. Sec. 52.40 through 52.46 that
either repeats the general applicability deadline from Sec.
52.40(c)(2) or that establishes a deadline for a specific requirement
or option would be revised to clearly indicate the applicable deadline
for sources in Arizona as well as the applicable deadline for sources
in states already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
requirements. In most cases, the EPA is proposing to establish the
deadlines for Arizona sources 1 year after the comparable deadlines for
sources in the other states. However, in cases where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan established a deadline in terms of a certain interval
after the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's effective date, the EPA is
proposing to similarly establish a comparable deadline for Arizona
sources in terms of the same interval after the effective date of a
final rule in this rulemaking.
C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously Finalized
Regulatory Text
In addition to the amendments described in sections X.A. and X.B.
for this document to implement the proposed extension of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in additional
states, the EPA is also proposing to make various technical corrections
and clarifications to the previously finalized regulatory text. Most of
the revisions would replace incorrect cross-references, improve grammar
and clarity, or fix typographical errors. These corrections are not
individually described in this preamble but are shown in the documents
included in the docket for this rulemaking, which show all proposed
changes to the regulatory text in redline-strikeout format.
Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory text for EGUs:
The backstop daily NOX emissions rate
provisions at Sec. Sec. 97.1006(c)(1)(i)(B) and 97.1024(b)(1)(ii)
would be revised to clarify that the 50-ton threshold that must be
crossed before cumulative exceedances of the backstop daily rate
require surrender of extra allowances applies individually to each unit
subject to the backstop rate provisions, as discussed in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36791-93, and not to all the units
at a source on a collective basis.
The backstop daily NOX emissions rate
provisions at Sec. 97.1024(b)(3) would be revised to avoid
inadvertently applying the backstop emissions rate provisions in
control periods after 2029 to units without installed SCR controls in
states where the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's identified emissions
control stringency does not include the installation of new SCR
controls.
The ``maximum controlled baseline'' language in the
allowance allocation provisions at Sec. Sec. 97.1011(b)(4)(ii) and
97.1012(a)(4)(ii) would be revised to avoid inadvertently applying SCR-
based assumptions in the calculations of allowance allocations to units
without installed SCR controls in states where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's identified emissions control stringency does not
include the installation of new SCR controls.
The secondary emissions limitation provisions at Sec.
97.1025(c)(1) would be revised to clarify that the provisions do not
apply before the 2024 control period, as stated in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36798 and consistent with the
provisions for the timing of compliance requirements at Sec.
97.1006(c)(3)(ii).
The provisions to create an initial allowance bank for
states transitioning to the Group 3 trading program under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan at Sec. 97.826(e)(1)(ii)(B) would be revised to
clarify that the initial bank target used to determine the conversion
factor is calculated as 21 percent of the sum of the 2024 trading
budgets under Sec. 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for the relevant states, not as
the potentially different sum of the final 2024 variability limits
under Sec. 97.1010(e) for the relevant states, because the final 2024
variability limit values under Sec. 97.1010(e) would not be known
until after the deadline for
[[Page 12720]]
carrying out the bank conversion procedure.
The provision at Sec. 52.38(b)(14)(iii)(A) that clarifies
the continued applicability of the EPA's allowance housekeeping
authority after the sources in a State no longer participate in a given
trading program would be revised to include Group 3 allowances, in
light of the interim transition of sources in several states out of the
Group 3 trading program in response to judicial stay orders.
Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory text for non-EGUs:
The definition of ``ozone season'' currently provided as
part of the general requirements of the non-EGU regulations at Sec.
52.40(c)(1) would be broken out as a freestanding definition and
relocated to Sec. 52.40(b). The revision would clarify the
regulations.
The recordkeeping provisions at Sec. Sec. 52.41(f),
52.42(e), 52.43(f), 52.44(h)(1) through (3), 52.45(e)(1), and 52.46(f)
would be revised by adding language to the introductory text stating
that the recordkeeping requirements apply only with respect to
operations during the ozone season (unless stated otherwise),
consistent with the existing regulations in the general recordkeeping
requirements at Sec. 52.40(c)(3). The revisions would also add cross-
references to the general recordkeeping requirements at Sec.
52.40(c)(3) and (f), where additional details on recordkeeping
requirements are provided. Relatedly, the recordkeeping provisions at
Sec. 52.45(e)(2) for low-use industrial boilers would be revised to
correctly cross-reference Sec. 52.40(f) (but not Sec. 52.40(c)(3))
and to include language stating that the recordkeeping requirements of
that provision apply with respect to operations throughout the calendar
year, consistent with the qualification criteria for the low-use
exemption. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
Two types of corrections would be made to the reporting
provisions at Sec. Sec. 52.40(g), 52.41(g), 52.42(f), 52.43(g),
52.44(i), 52.45(f), and 52.46(g). First, a statement would be added to
Sec. 52.40(g) clarifying that requirements to use the EPA's Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an analogous
electronic submission system provided by the EPA apply with respect to
not only annual reports but also excess emissions reports, consistent
with similar statements already included in the industry-specific
reporting provisions. Second, the industry-specific reporting
provisions for excess emissions reports and annual reports would be
revised to remove a statement that the reports are required to be
submitted in pdf format, which is not correct in all situations, and to
add a statement indicating that the appropriate submission instructions
for reports submitted via CEDRI will be provided in CEDRI. In
conjunction with the additional cross-reference corrections that the
EPA is proposing to make in this rulemaking (as discussed at the
beginning of this section X.C.), each of the industry-specific
reporting provisions would include a correct cross-reference to the
general reporting provisions Sec. 52.40(g), where information on the
report format requirements for various situations is set forth in
greater detail. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
Several provisions concerning non-report submissions--that
is, optional or required submissions other than required excess
emissions reports and annual reports--would be revised to indicate that
sources must make the submissions to the EPA via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided by the EPA. First, provisions at
Sec. Sec. 52.40(e)(1), 52.41(b)(1)(ii), 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B), and
52.45(d)(2)(vii) which do not currently reflect the EPA's intent for
all submissions to be made electronically would be revised to require
use of the appropriate standard electronic submission mechanisms.
Second, a provision at Sec. 52.43(d)(1) which currently identifies the
standard electronic submission mechanisms for reports would be revised
to identify the standard electronic submission mechanisms for non-
report submissions. Finally, the provision currently designated as
Sec. 52.45(d)(4) \171\ which currently identifies only CEDRI would be
revised to also include the standard reference to an analogous
electronic submission system. The revisions would make these provisions
consistent with the other provisions governing non-report submissions
throughout the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU regulations and
would clarify the regulations. See Sec. Sec. 52.40(d)(4), (d)(9)(ii),
and (e)(7)(ii); 52.41(d); 52.42(g)(2); 52.43(d)(1), (g)(1), and (h)(2);
and 52.44(d)(1), (e)(1), and (j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate this provision as
Sec. 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the regulations governing compliance extension requests
at Sec. 52.40(d), the regulations governing case-by-case emissions
limit requests at Sec. 52.40(e), and the regulations governing steel
reheat furnace work plan submissions at Sec. 52.43(d)(4), multiple
revisions would be made to the provisions concerning notifications from
the EPA to sources. First, each of the provisions specifically
identifying CEDRI as a mechanism for electronic notifications from the
EPA would be revised to instead provide for the EPA's notifications to
be made more generally ``in writing or via an electronic submission
system provided by the EPA,'' because CEDRI is not currently capable of
serving this purpose. Second, a provision at Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B)
that does not currently identify any electronic notification mechanism
would be revised to include the same general reference to ``an
electronic submission system provided by the EPA'' as the other
notification provisions. Third, current phrases in Sec. Sec.
52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6) and 52.43(d)(4)(ii) calling for the
notifications to be made publicly available would be removed as overly
broad, because some of the notifications made under those paragraphs do
not concern final Agency decisions but instead concern non-final
expressions of intent which the Agency did not mean to include within
the scope of the public availability requirements. Finally, the
revisions would add a new sentence to Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(ii) that
requires the relevant final decisions under that paragraph to be made
publicly available but does not require any non-final expressions of
intent to be made publicly available. See also Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(iv)
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly
available). In the case of Sec. 52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6), the removed
phrases about public availability requirements would not be replaced
because other related provisions already require the relevant final
decisions under those paragraphs to be made publicly available. See
Sec. 52.40(d)(6) and (e)(4); see also Sec. 52.40(d)(10) and (e)(8)
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly
available). The revisions would clarify the regulations.
The definition of ``facility'' in the regulations for
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec. 52.41(a) would be revised to
refer to ``the set of states'' instead of ``the 20 states'' covered by
the non-EGU regulations. The revision would clarify the regulations and
maintain the intent of the current definition as finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, which was to ensure that any facility-wide
averaging plans do not extend beyond the geographic area covered by the
regulations. See 88 FR 36824.
The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec. 52.43(e) would be revised to
correctly indicate the terms of
[[Page 12721]]
the partial exemption created for certain engines in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. As discussed in the rulemaking record, the EPA
determined that it is appropriate to exempt engines that operate
primarily during peak hours outside the ozone season and that operate
for 50 hours or less during the ozone season from most of the testing
and monitoring requirements applicable to other engines, with the
exception of the requirement for an initial performance test. See EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1127, Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Response to Public
Comments on Proposed Rule, at 657. As revised, the provision at Sec.
52.43(e)(6) would correctly specify which testing and monitoring
requirements are covered by the exemption and would state the correct
ozone season operating hour ceiling of 50 hours. Also, the largely
duplicative provision currently at Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iii) would be
removed and the provision currently designated as Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iv)
would be redesignated as Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iii). The revisions would
bring the regulations into agreement with the EPA's intent as discussed
in the rulemaking record and improve clarity.
The definitions section of the regulations for cement
kilns at Sec. 52.42(a) would be revised by removing a definition of
``cement plant'' because the term is not used in the final regulations.
The applicability provisions of the regulations covering
steel reheat furnaces at Sec. 52.43(b) would be revised to eliminate
the possibility of an incorrect inference that a unit previously
affected under the regulations might no longer be affected after
installation of low-NOX burners. The EPA's intent for the
regulations to remain in effect for a given affected unit after any
installation of low-NOX burners is clear from the overall
structure of the regulations, including the requirements for work plans
to set emissions limits achieving a minimum 40 percent reduction from
baseline emissions levels for affected units based on the installation
of low-NOX burners or alternative low-NOX
technologies and the requirements for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure compliance with those limits
following installation. See Sec. 52.43(d) through (g). There is also
no mention anywhere in the regulations or in the preamble of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan of any possibility that a unit's status
could change from affected to non-affected following the installation
of low-NOX burners. The revision would clarify the
regulations.
The initial notification provisions of the regulations
covering steel reheat furnaces at Sec. 52.43(h)(2) would be revised to
add a phrase stating that the initial notification requirement does not
apply to sources that already have low-NOX burners
installed. The revision would clarify the regulations by making the
description of affected units in this paragraph consistent with the
applicability criteria set forth in Sec. 52.43(b).
The emissions limitations provisions for glass
manufacturing furnaces at Sec. 52.44(c) would be revised to clarify
how and when the exemptions during startup, shutdown and idling apply.
As currently written, the provision could be interpreted as allowing an
all-or-none package of shutdown and idling exemptions for the 2026
ozone season, if the regulations' shutdown and idling requirements are
all met, and a broader all-or-none package of startup, shutdown, and
idling exemptions for subsequent ozone seasons, if the regulations'
startup, shutdown, and idling requirements are all met. The revised
language would clarify that the exemptions during startup, shutdown,
and idling are each available independently of the other exemptions if
the appropriate requirements are met, and that this is the case for all
ozone seasons. The EPA's intent for the startup, shutdown, and idling
exemptions to be independent of one another is evident from the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan preamble. See, e.g., 88 FR 36831 (``The emissions
limits for glass melting furnaces in Sec. 52.44(c) do not apply during
periods of start-up, shutdown, and/or idling at affected units that
comply instead with the alternative requirements for start-up,
shutdown, and/or idling periods specified in Sec. 52.44(d), (e), and/
or (f), respectively.'' (emphasis added)). Moreover, the preamble
contains no discussion indicating any intent for the exemptions to
apply differently in the 2026 ozone season than in subsequent ozone
seasons. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
In the recordkeeping provisions for glass manufacturing
furnaces at Sec. 52.44(h), a provision concerning operating parameters
would be redesignated from Sec. 52.44(h)(1)(vii)(D) to Sec.
52.44(h)(1)(viii) to correctly indicate that the provision's
application is not limited to situations where continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) are being used, and the succeeding
subparagraphs of Sec. 52.44(h)(1) would be renumbered accordingly. The
correction is needed because the affected units are required to use the
operating parameters for monitoring purposes only when CEMS are not
being used. See Sec. 52.44(g)(2) and (3).
The provisions of the industrial boiler testing and
monitoring requirements at Sec. 52.45(d)(2)(vii) concerning requests
for alternative monitoring requirements would be revised to explicitly
require that if such a request is approved, the facility must request
that the relevant permitting Agency incorporate the approved monitoring
procedure into the facility's title V permit. The revision would ensure
consistency with other provisions of the non-EGU regulations that call
for facility-specific requirements to be incorporated into the
facility's title V permits. See Sec. Sec. 52.40(d)(5) and (e)(3) and
52.45(d)(4).\172\ The revision would also carry out the Agency's
broader intent expressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for
facilities' applicable requirements to be incorporated into their title
V permits. See 88 FR 36844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate Sec. 52.45(d)(4) as
Sec. 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions concerning the required annual reports for
industrial boilers at Sec. 52.45(f) would be revised to identify the
required contents of the reports, which would be the records required
under the applicable recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 52.45(e),
including records of CEMS data or operating parameters required under
Sec. 52.45(d). The required contents of the annual reports for
industrial boilers would be fully consistent with the required contents
of the annual reports for the other types of non-EGU sources covered by
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. See Sec. Sec. 52.41(g)(3),
52.42(f)(3), 52.43(g)(4), 52.44(i)(3), and 52.46(g)(2). The revision
would clarify the regulations by filling an obviously unintended gap,
because the regulations currently set forth a requirement for
submission of annual reports but lack any description of what the
required reports should contain. In addition, because the required
contents of the annual reports would include the CEMS-related data that
are currently identified as the contents of a separate reporting
requirement in Sec. 52.45(f)(3), that separate reporting requirement
would be eliminated as redundant, and the annual report provision would
be redesignated as Sec. 52.45(f)(3).
The definitions section of the municipal waste combustor
regulations at Sec. 52.46(a) would be revised to include a definition
of ``municipal solid waste'' matching the definition of the same
[[Page 12722]]
term in the standards of performance for new large municipal waste
combustors at 40 CFR 60.51b. The portions of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan preamble discussing the requirements for municipal waste
combustors contain no discussion of any intention to introduce a
definition of municipal solid waste for these regulations differing
from the definition included in the EPA's other regulations for large
municipal waste combustors. See 88 FR 36836-38. Addition of the
definition would clarify the regulations. Also, definitions in Sec.
52.46(a) for ``mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor'', ``mass
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass burn
waterwall municipal waste combustor'' would be removed because the
terms are not used in the final regulation.
Several provisions of the regulations for municipal waste
combustors at Sec. 52.46 would be revised to better implement the
EPA's intent concerning the treatment of emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown. As indicated in the Final Good Neighbor Plan
preamble at 88 FR 36837, the EPA intended to address startup and
shutdown emissions following an approach previously adopted in the
standards of performance for commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) units at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD.
Under this approach, a single set of emissions limits applies at all
times and the calculations of average emissions rates used to determine
compliance with the stated emissions limits use the data measured in
all operating hours, including periods of startup and shutdown, but
unlike the emissions data measured at other times, the emissions data
measured during periods of startup and shutdown are not required to be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.2145(j)(2)(i) and
(u)(1); 60.2165(n)(4) and (7); 60.2710(j)(2)(i) and (u)(1); and
60.2730(n)(4) and (7). To implement this intended approach in Sec.
52.46, paragraphs (c) and (e)(2)(vi) would be revised to clarify that a
single set of 24-hour block average emission limits and 30-day rolling
average emissions limits applies at all times, subject to differences
in oxygen correction requirements for emissions data measured in
periods of startup and shutdown, while paragraphs (d) and (e)(3) would
be revised to remove separate emissions limits and monitoring
requirements applicable only to periods of startup and shutdown. The
revised regulations would implement the EPA's expressed intent
concerning the treatment of emissions during startup and shutdown more
accurately than the existing regulations.
The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for
municipal waste combustors at Sec. 52.46(e)(vi) would be revised to
clarify that where a source selects carbon dioxide for use in diluent
corrections, the procedures used to determine the relationship between
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels would be the procedures set forth for
the same purpose in the standards of performance for new large
municipal waste combustors at 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6). This revision would
correct an unintended omission and is consistent with the EPA's similar
incorporation of aspects of those standards of performance in other
provisions of the testing and monitoring requirements for municipal
waste combustors at Sec. 52.46(e)(2)(ii) and (3)(i).
The reporting provisions for municipal waste combustors at
Sec. 52.46(g) would be revised to add a provision for excess emissions
reports parallel to the excess emissions report provisions for each of
the other non-EGU source categories. The EPA expressly indicated the
intent to require excess emissions reports from all non-EGU source
categories, including municipal waste combustors, in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble. See 88 FR 36820. The revision would correct an
inadvertent omission and clarify the regulations.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis,
``Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal
``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' is briefly summarized in section IX of
this document and is also available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2792.01. The EPA has placed a copy of the ICR
in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing an ICR, related specifically to EGUs, for this
proposal. The proposed rule would amend the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 trading program addressing seasonal NOX
emissions in various states. Under the proposed amendments, all EGU
sources located in states covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
unaffected by stay orders would remain in the Group 3 trading program.
Additionally, EGU sources in three states (Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee)
currently covered by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program would transition from the Group 2 program to the
revised Group 3 trading program beginning with the 2025 ozone season.
Further, sources in Arizona and New Mexico not currently covered by any
CSAPR NOX ozone season trading program would join the
revised Group 3 trading program. In total, EGU sources in 15 states
would now be covered by the Group 3 program.
There is an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0667), that
includes information collection requirements placed on EGU sources for
the six Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs
addressing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, annual
NOX emissions, or seasonal NOX emissions in
various sets of states, and the Texas SO2 trading program
which is modeled after CSAPR. Additionally, the EPA submitted an EGU
ICR under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (OMB Control Number 2060-
0745). The ICR in this proposal accounts for the additional respondent
burden related to the addition sources in the five states to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Group 3 trading program.
The principal information collection requirements under the CSAPR
and Texas trading programs relate to the monitoring and reporting of
emissions and associated data in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Other
information collection requirements under the programs concern the
submittal of
[[Page 12723]]
information necessary to allocate and transfer emissions allowances and
the submittal of certificates of representation and other typically
one-time registration forms.
Affected sources under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are
generally stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines
serving generators larger than 25 MW producing electricity for sale.
Most of these affected sources are also subject to the Acid Rain
Program (ARP). The information collection requirements under the CSAPR
and Texas trading programs and the ARP substantially overlap and are
fully integrated. The burden and costs of overlapping requirements are
accounted for in the ARP ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0258). Thus, this
ICR accounts for information collection burden and costs under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading program that are
incremental to the burden and costs already accounted for in both the
ARP and CSAPR ICRs.
For most sources already reporting data under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 or CSAPR NOX Ozone Group
2 trading programs, there would be no incremental burden or cost, as
reporting requirements will remain identical. Certain sources with a
common stack configuration and/or those that are large, coal-fired
EGUs, will be subject to additional emissions reporting requirements
under the proposed rule. These sources will need to make a one-time
monitoring plan and Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) update
to meet the additional reporting requirements. There is some
incremental cost and burden for those sources in the two states not
currently reporting data under a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
program. Affected sources in Arizona and New Mexico that are already
reporting data as part of the Acid Rain Program only require monitoring
plan and DAHS updates. For the units that already report to EPA under
the Acid Rain Program or the NOX SIP Call, with the
exception of any one-time costs to update monitoring plans and DAHS,
all information collection costs and burden are already reflected in
the previously approved ICRs for those other rules (OMB Control Nos.
2060-0258 and 2060-0445).
In total, there are an estimated 23 units in Arizona and New Mexico
that do not already report data to EPA according to 40 CFR part 75 and
that would need to implement one of the Part 75 monitoring
methodologies including certification of monitoring systems or
implementation of the low mass emissions methodology. These units would
also require monitoring plan and DAHS updates. Of these 23 units, nine
units would be expected to adopt low mass emissions (LME) as the
monitoring method and 14 would be expected to adopt NOX
CEMS/Appendix D monitoring methods.
Respondents/affected entities: Industry respondents are stationary,
fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving electricity
generators subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, as well as
non-source entities voluntarily participating in allowance trading
activities. Potential State respondents are states that can elect to
submit state-determined allowance allocations for sources located in
their states.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Industry respondents: voluntary
and mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that there would be
64 industry respondents.
Frequency of response: on occasion, quarterly, and annually.
Total estimated additional burden: 7,538 hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
Total estimated additional cost: $1,243,126 (per year); includes
$593,874 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than March 18,
2024. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities in this proposed rule are
included within OMB ICR Number 2060-0744, ICR for the Final Rule,
Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: Transport Obligations for non-Electric Generating
Units. The EPA submitted this ICR to OMB under the PRA during the
development of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In this action, the EPA
proposes to extend the non-EGU regulatory requirements to affected
units within the State of Arizona under the same rationale provided in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Because the respondent pool in this
action is not well-defined and because the number of affected non-EGU
sources in Arizona estimated to install controls is fewer than ten, we
are not proposing to develop a new ICR or revise the existing ICR at
this time. We will, however, revise the ICR to include any covered non-
EGU sources in Arizona when we renew the ICR. The EPA has filed a copy
of the non-EGU ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
ICR No. 2060-0744 is an existing ICR that addresses the burden
associated with new regulatory requirements under the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. Owners and operators of certain non-EGU industry
stationary sources will potentially modify or install new emissions
controls and associated monitoring systems to meet the NOX
emissions limits of this final rule. The burden in ICR 2060-0744
reflects the new monitoring, calibrating, recordkeeping, reporting and
testing activities required of covered industrial sources, which we are
collecting to ensure compliance with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In
accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, any monitoring information
to be submitted by sources is a matter of public record. Information
received and identified by owners or operators as CBI and approved as
CBI by the EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart
B, shall be maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are the owners/operators of certain non-EGU industry sources in the
following industry sectors: furnaces in Glass and Glass Product
Manufacturing; boilers and furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; kilns in Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reciprocating internal combustion engines in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; and boilers in Metal Ore Mining, Basic
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and
[[Page 12724]]
combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary and mandatory.
(Sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA). Data recorded or reported by
respondents are required by the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Estimated number of respondents: 3,328.
Frequency of response: The specific frequency for each information
collection activity within the non-EGU ICR is shown at the end of the
ICR document in Tables 1 through 18. In general, the frequency varies
across the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities. Some
recordkeeping such as work plan preparation is a one-time activity
whereas pipeline engine maintenance recordkeeping is conducted
quarterly. Reporting frequency is on an annual basis.
Total estimated burden: 11,481 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $3,823,000 (average per year); includes
$2,400,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses, which includes EGUs and non-EGUs and are briefly described
below. In 2028, the EPA identified a total of four EGUs owned by small
entities affected by the proposed rule. Of these, no small entities are
estimated to have costs greater than 1 percent of revenues.
The Agency has determined that there is not a significant number of
small entities potentially affected by the proposed rule that will have
compliance costs greater than 1 percent of annual revenues during the
compliance period. The EPA has concluded that there is not a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for this proposed rule overall. Details of this analysis are presented
in section 3 of the EIA, which is in the public docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal government. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
The EPA is proposing a finding that interstate transport of ozone
precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing FIP requirements to
eliminate interstate transport of ozone precursors from these five
states. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA is proposing to extend FIP
requirements to apply in Indian country located within the upwind
geography of the final rule, including Indian reservation lands and
other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The EPA's proposed
determinations in this regard are described further in section V.B.,
Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate
Finding. The EPA proposes that all covered existing and new EGU and
non-EGU sources that are located in the ``301(d) FIP'' areas within the
geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which would be subject
to this rule if located within areas subject to State CAA planning
authority, should be included in this rule. To the EPA's knowledge, two
covered existing EGU or non-EGU sources are located within the 301(d)
FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort Mojave
Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. This action has Tribal
implication because of the extension of FIP requirements into Indian
country and because, in general, tribes have a vested interest in how
this final rule would affect air quality.
The EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA hosted an
environmental justice webinar on October 26, 2021, that was attended by
State regulatory authorities, environmental groups, federally
recognized tribes, and small business stakeholders. Summaries of prior
consultations are included in the docket for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668). The EPA will also continue
to consult with the governments of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of the
Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation of the Navajo Reservation,
and plans to further consult with any other Tribal officials under the
EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in
the process of developing this proposed regulation to solicit
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA plans to
issue Tribal consultation letters addressed to the appropriate tribes
in [Month Year] after the proposed rule is signed. Consultation
summaries will be included in the docket for this action and in a
summary section in the preamble when this action is finalized.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and
risk assessments are contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Economic
Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor
Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. The EPA determined that the ozone-related benefits,
Fine Particulate Matter-related benefits, and CO2-related
benefits from this final rule will further improve children's health.
However, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this
action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available in the
Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed
[[Page 12725]]
Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015
8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects for the proposed regulatory control alternative as
follows. The Agency estimates a 0 percent change in retail electricity
prices on average across the contiguous U.S. in 2025 and a 0 percent
change in retail electricity prices on average across the contiguous
U.S. in 2028 as a result of this proposed rule. Additional details of
the estimated retail electricity price changes are presented in section
3 of the EIA at proposal, which is in the public docket.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and
adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section VIII.
Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications, and Outreach of
this Preamble. Briefly, proximity demographic analyses found larger
percentages of Hispanics, people below the poverty level, people with
less educational attainment, and people linguistically isolated are
living within 5 km and 10 km of an affected EGU, compared to national
averages. It also finds larger percentages of Native Americans and
people below the poverty level living within 5 km and 10 km of an
affected non-EGU facility.
The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. Importantly, the action described in this rule is
expected to lower ozone and PM2.5 in some areas, including
in ozone nonattainment areas, and thus mitigate some pre-existing
health risks across most populations and communities evaluated.
K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit: (1) when the Agency action
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final
actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (2) when such action is
locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based
on such a determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final
actions, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide
whether to invoke the exception in (2).\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that an action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator takes into account a
number of policy considerations, including his judgment balancing
the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's authoritative
centralized review versus allowing development of the issue in other
contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that this proposed rulemaking, if finalized,
would be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1) because it would extend the applicability of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023 (88 FR 36654 (June 5,
2023)), which as promulgated would apply to 23 states across the
nation, to five additional states located in four EPA regions and four
Federal judicial circuits, in conjunction with partial disapproval of
the SIP submissions from these five states. The final rule would
directly implement the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in these five
additional states based on application of the same, nationally
consistent 4-step interstate transport framework for assessing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that the EPA applied in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023, and in
other nationally applicable rulemakings, such as CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update. The final rule would thus apply a
uniform, nationwide analytical method and interpretation of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) across the covered states, expanding the scope of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to a total of up to 28 states across the
nation. The final rule would also make technical corrections to the
nationally applicable regulatory provisions promulgated in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, see section X.C. of this document.
In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this action, if
finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator
intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the
CAA to make and publish a finding that the final action is based on
several determinations of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This proposal, if finalized, would be
based on several determinations of nationwide scope or effect, each of
which has the purpose of ensuring consistency and equity across all
states, including: (1) the determination that use of the same 2023 and
2026 analytical year air quality modeling and monitoring analytics
(including the use of the violating-monitor receptor identification
methodology) that were used to define all other states' good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for purposes of
defining the obligations of the five additional states in this action;
(2) the determination that use of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold is
appropriate for all states at Step 2 and that neither reliance on the
EPA's August 2018 1 ppb Memo standing alone nor reliance on EPA's
guidance on ``significant impact levels'' (SIL) for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program provides adequate
justification for an alternative threshold; (3) the determination that
the same level of emissions control stringency to the same industry and
source types at Step 3 as was determined for 23 other states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is appropriate to apply to these five
additional states; and (4) the determination that the relevant sources
in these five states should be subject to the same nationally uniform
emissions control programs promulgated at Step 4 for 23 other states in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also
appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple judicial
circuits. In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These determinations would provide important bases for the action,
if finalized, are needed to ensure consistency and equity in the
treatment of all states in addressing the multistate problem of
interstate ozone pollution
[[Page 12726]]
under the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and are not
related to the particularities of the emissions sources in any specific
state. The Federal Good Neighbor Plan and related rulemakings such as
this one are designed as a ``collective approach'' to effectively
address the nationwide problem of interstate ozone transport in an
equitable and consistent manner across all states. See Kentucky Energy
and Environment Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023),
Order at 8. The determinations underlying this proposed action are
therefore of nationwide scope and effect, among other reasons, because
they ensure that the requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
(until replaced by SIPs meeting the statutory requirements) will be
implemented on a consistent basis across all ``upwind'' states, and
will deliver the full amount of relief from upwind emissions that the
EPA has found downwind jurisdictions are due.\175\ For these reasons,
the Administrator intends, if this proposed action is finalized, to
exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make
and publish a finding that this action is based on several
determinations of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA
section 307(b)(1), including, but not limited to, those identified
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). CAA
section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 307(d) applies to, among
other things, ``the promulgation or revision of an implementation plan
by the Administrator under [CAA section 110(c)].'' 42 U.S.C.
7407(d)(1)(B). This proposed action, among other things, proposes
Federal implementation plans for five additional states to extend the
coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated at 88 FR 36654
(June 5, 2023). To the extent any portion of this action is not
expressly identified under CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the Administrator
determines that the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to such
action. See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d)
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine'').
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 97
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
Michael Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.38 by:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(C) and (a)(5)(i)(C), removing ``following
the control'' and adding in its place ``following the year of such
control'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), removing ``2017 and each subsequent
year'' and adding in its place ``2017 through 2024 only, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(14)(iii) of this section'';
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E);
0
d. In paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(C), (b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(8)(iii)(C), and
(b)(9)(iii)(C), removing ``following the control'' and adding in its
place ``following the year of such control'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(10) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), removing ``2024, of'' and adding in its
place ``2026, of'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (b)(10)(v)(A) and (B);
0
h. In paragraph (b)(11)(iii) introductory text and paragraph
(b)(12)(iii) introductory text, removing ``2025 or'' and adding in its
place ``2025 (or for a State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
section, 2027) or'';
0
i. In paragraph (b)(14)(i)(G), removing ``Sec. 97.826(f)'' and adding
in its place ``Sec. 97.826(g)'';
0
j. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii) introductory text, removing ``paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), (b)(2)(iii)(D)(1), or'' and adding
in its place ``paragraph (b)(2) or'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(A);
0
l. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B), removing ``97.826(d) and (e), and''
and adding in its place ``97.826(d) through (f), and''; and
0
m. In paragraph (b)(17)(i), removing ``2024'' and adding in its place
``2026''.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.38 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to
emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) The provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year: Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee.
* * * * *
(10) State-determined allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for 2026. A State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator
will approve, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
allocation provisions replacing the provisions in Sec. 97.1011(a)(1)
of this chapter with regard to sources in the State and areas of Indian
country within the borders of the State subject to the State's SIP
authority for the control period in 2026, a list of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units and the amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to each unit
on such list, provided that the list of units and allocations meets the
following requirements:
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) By [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the State must
notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the
Administrator of the State's intent to submit to the Administrator a
complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i)
through (iv) of this section by April 1, 2025; and
(B) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(10)(v)(A) of this section by April
1, 2025.
* * * * *
(14) * * *
(iii) * * *
[[Page 12727]]
(A) The provisions of Sec. Sec. 97.526(c), 97.826(c), and
97.1026(c) of this chapter (concerning the transfer of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances, CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 allowances, and CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances between certain Allowance Management System accounts
under common control);
* * * * *
Sec. 52.39 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.39 in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iii),
(h)(1)(iii), and (i)(1)(iii) by removing ``following the control'' and
adding in its place ``following the year of such control''.
0
4. Amend Sec. 52.40 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``paragraph (b)'' and adding in its place
``paragraph (c)(1)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b):
0
i. In the introductory text, removing the section symbol before
``52.46'';
0
ii. Revising the definitions ``Existing affected unit'' and ``New
affected unit''; and
0
iii. Adding the definition ``Ozone season'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), removing ``(defined as May 1 through September
30 of a calendar year)'';
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(2)(i) and adding
paragraph (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2), removing ``May 1, 2029'' and adding in its
place ``the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the
applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and (d)(4) through (8) and paragraph
(d)(9) introductory text;
0
h. In paragraph (d)(9)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
i. Revising paragraphs (d)(10) and (11) and (e)(1);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)(1), removing ``63.7(e)(2)(ii)(2), or'' and
adding in its place ``63.7(e)(2)(ii), or'';
0
k. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) through (6) and paragraph (e)(7)
introductory text;
0
l. In paragraph (e)(7)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
m. Revising paragraph (e)(8);
0
n. In paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an''; and
0
o. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(D) and (g)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.40 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
sources not subject to the CSAPR ozone season trading program?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Existing affected unit means any affected unit for which
construction commenced before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
this section.
New affected unit means any affected unit for which construction
commenced on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
Ozone season means the period between May 1 and September 30,
inclusive, for a given year.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(ii) The provisions of this section or Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42,
Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 apply to affected
units located in each of the following States, including Indian country
located within the borders of such States, beginning in the 2027 ozone
season and in each subsequent ozone season: Arizona.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.
52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec.
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those
sections by the start date of the first ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, due to
circumstances entirely beyond the owner or operator's control, may
request an initial compliance extension to a date certain no later than
the start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The extension request must
contain a demonstration of necessity consistent with the requirements
of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(v) Identify the owner or operator's proposed compliance date. A
request for an initial compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later than the
start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and state whether the owner
or operator anticipates a need to request a second compliance
extension. A request for a second compliance extension under paragraph
(d)(2) of this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later
than the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and identify
additional actions taken by the owner or operator to ensure that the
affected unit(s) will be in compliance with the applicable requirements
in this section by that proposed compliance date;
* * * * *
(4) Each request for a compliance extension shall be submitted via
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA no later
than 180 days prior to the applicable compliance date. Until an
extension has been granted by the Administrator under this section, the
owner or operator of an affected unit shall comply with all applicable
requirements of this section and shall remain subject to the compliance
date under paragraph (c)(2) of this section or the initial extended
compliance date under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, as applicable.
A denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a
compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section and
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant
title V permit revised to incorporate the conditions of the extension
of compliance. The conditions of a compliance extension granted under
paragraph (d)(6) of this section will be incorporated into the affected
unit's title V permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved
state operating permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40
CFR part 71, whichever apply.
(6) Based on the information provided in any request made under
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section or other information, the
Administrator may grant an extension of time to comply with applicable
requirements in Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44,
Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 consistent with the provisions of paragraph
(d)(1) or (2). The decision to grant an extension will be provided by
notification in writing or via an electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify each
affected unit covered by the extension; specify the termination date of
the extension; and specify any additional conditions that the
Administrator deems necessary
[[Page 12728]]
to ensure timely installation of the necessary controls (e.g., the
date(s) by which on-site construction, installation of control
equipment, and/or process changes will be initiated).
(7) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit who has requested a compliance extension
under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section whether the submitted
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after
receipt of any supplementary information.
(8) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to grant or intention to deny a request for a
compliance extension within 60 calendar days after providing written
notification pursuant to paragraph (d)(7) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(9) Before denying any request for an extension of compliance, the
Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or operator of the
Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together with:
* * * * *
(10) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for an
extension will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will
set forth the specific grounds on which the denial is based. The final
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of
additional information or argument (if the request is complete), or
within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the submission of
additional information or argument under paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this
section, if no such submission is made.
(11) The granting of an extension under this section shall not
abrogate the Administrator's authority under section 114 of the Act.
(e) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.
52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec.
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those
sections due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship
may submit to the Administrator, by August 5, 2024, for a unit in a
State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [ONE YEAR AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a request for approval of a case-
by-case emissions limit. The request must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA and shall
contain information sufficient for the Administrator to confirm that
the affected unit is unable to comply with the applicable emissions
limit, due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship, and
to establish an appropriate alternative case-by-case emissions limit
for the affected unit. Until a case-by-case emissions limit has been
approved by the Administrator under this section, the owner or operator
shall remain subject to all applicable requirements in Sec. 52.41,
Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46. A
denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
* * * * *
(3) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a
case-by-case emissions limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section and
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant
title V permit revised to incorporate the case-by-case emissions limit.
Any case-by-case emissions limit approved under paragraph (e)(4) of
this section will be incorporated into the affected unit's title V
permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved state operating
permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40 CFR part 71,
whichever apply.
(4) Based on the information provided in any request made under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section or other information, the
Administrator may approve a case-by-case emissions limit that will
apply to an affected unit in lieu of the applicable emissions limit in
Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or
Sec. 52.46. The decision to approve a case-by-case emissions limit
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify
each affected unit covered by the case-by-case emissions limit.
(5) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit who has requested a case-by-case emissions
limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section whether the submitted
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after
receipt of any supplementary information.
(6) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to approve or intention to deny the request for
a case-by-case emissions limit within 60 calendar days after providing
notification pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(7) Before denying any request for a case-by-case emissions limit,
the Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of the Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together
with:
* * * * *
(8) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for a
case-by-case emissions limit will be provided by notification in
writing or via an electronic submission system provided by the EPA,
will be made publicly available, and will set forth the specific
grounds on which the denial is based. The final decision will be made
within 60 calendar days after presentation of additional information or
argument (if the request is complete), or within 60 calendar days after
the deadline for the submission of additional information or argument
under paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, if no such submission is
made.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address [email protected],
should include clear CBI markings as described in paragraph
(g)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, and should be flagged to the attention
of Lead of 2015 Ozone Transport FIP. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
* * * * *
(2) Annual reports and excess emissions reports must be submitted
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA
[[Page 12729]]
to report data required by Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec.
52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 52.41 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Cap'', removing ``sum each'' and adding in
its place ``sum of each'';
0
ii. In the definition for ``Facility'', removing ``20 states identified
in Sec. 52.40(b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``set of states
identified in Sec. 52.40(c)''; and
0
iii. In the definition for ``Rich burn'', removing ``affected unit
where'' and adding in its place ``affected units where'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, paragraph (b)(1)(ii),
and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d) introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and
adding in its place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. Redesignating the second paragraph (d)(1)(iv) as paragraph
(d)(1)(v);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4), removing ``an affected units'' and adding in
its place ``an affected unit'';
0
f. Removing paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and redesignating paragraph
(e)(3)(iv) as paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
0
g. In paragraph (e)(5) introductory text, removing ``owner of
operator'' and adding in its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(6) and paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
i. In paragraph (f)(1), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)(3)'';
0
j. In paragraph (f)(2), removing ``paragraph (e)(3)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)(4)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), paragraph (g)(3) introductory
text, and paragraph (g)(3)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.41 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas Industry?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, the owner or operator of an
emergency stationary RICE must operate the RICE according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section to
be treated as an emergency stationary RICE. In order for a stationary
RICE to be treated as an emergency RICE under this section, any
operation other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, and
operation in non-emergency situations for up to 50 hours per year, as
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii), is prohibited. If you
do not operate the RICE according to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii), the RICE will not be considered an emergency
engine under this section and must meet all requirements for affected
units in this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The owner or operator may operate an emergency stationary RICE
for maintenance checks and readiness testing for a maximum of 100 hours
per calendar year, provided that the tests are recommended by a
Federal, state, or local government agency, the manufacturer, the
vendor, or the insurance company associated with the engine. Any
operation for non-emergency situations as allowed by paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section counts as part of the 100 hours per
calendar year allowed by this paragraph (b)(1)(ii). The owner or
operator may petition the Administrator for approval of additional
hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a
petition is not required if the owner or operator maintains records
confirming that Federal, state, or local standards require maintenance
and testing of emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per calendar year. Any
petition must be submitted via CEDRI or an analogous electronic
submission system provided by the EPA. Any approval of a petition for
additional hours granted by the Administrator under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ, shall constitute approval by the Administrator of the
same petition under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that is
only operated during peak periods outside of the ozone season and your
hours of operation during the ozone season are 50 or less, you are not
subject to the testing and monitoring requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)
and (5) of this section as long as you record and report your hours of
operation during the ozone season in accordance with paragraphs (f) and
(g) of this section.
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after completing each performance
test required by this section. The results must be submitted following
the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted
following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall contain the following information:
(i) The name and address of the owner or operator;
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 52.42 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the definition ``Cement plant'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1):
0
i. In the definition for ``P'', removing ``Time'' and adding in its
place ``time''; and
0
ii. In the definition for ``n'', removing ``n = Number'' and adding in
its place ``N = Number'';
0
d. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
[[Page 12730]]
0
e. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), removing ``paragraph (e)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (f)''; and
0
f. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text, paragraphs (f)(1) through
(3), and paragraph (g)(2) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.42 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing Industry?
* * * * *
(b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements of this
section if you own or operate a new or existing cement kiln that is
located within any of the States listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including
Indian country located within the borders of any such State(s), and
emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of
NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing cement kiln
with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of NOX
on the date specified for the unit in the preceding sentence will
continue to be subject to the requirements of this section even if that
unit later becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that
lowers its potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(e) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established
under paragraph (c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a
State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following
information:
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 52.43 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(1), paragraph (d)(4) introductory
text, and paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii) introductory text, removing ``via the CEDRI
or analogous'' and adding in its place ``in writing or via an'';
0
c. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B), removing ``in writing, within'' and
adding in its place ``via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, within'';
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4)(v), removing ``August 5, 2024, the'' and adding
in its place ``the submission deadline specified for the unit in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the'';
0
f. In paragraph (e)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii), removing ``a site-specific indicator'' and
adding in its place ``site-specific indicator ranges'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (f)'' and adding in
its place ``paragraph (g)'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
j. In paragraph (f)(8), removing ``paragraph (d)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) and paragraph (h)(2)
introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.43 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry?
* * * * *
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to each
new or existing reheat furnace at an iron and steel mill or ferroalloy
manufacturing facility that is located within any of the States listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s), does not have low-NOX burners
installed, and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per
year or more of NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any
existing reheat furnace without low-NOX burners installed
and with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of
NOX on the date specified for the unit in the preceding
sentence will continue to be subject to the requirements of this
section even if that unit later installs low-NOX burners or
becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that lowers its
potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NOX.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of each affected unit must submit a work
plan for each affected unit by August 5, 2024,
[[Page 12731]]
for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [ONE YEAR
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). The work plan must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA. Each work
plan must include a description of the affected unit and rated
production and energy capacities, identification of the low-
NOX burner or alternative low NOX technology
selected, and the phased construction timeframe by which you will
design, install, and consistently operate the device. Each work plan
shall also include, where applicable, performance test results obtained
no more than five years before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for
a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), to be used as
baseline emissions testing data providing the basis for required
emissions reductions. If no such data exist, then the owner or operator
must perform pre-installation testing as described in paragraph (e)(3)
of this section.
* * * * *
(4) The Administrator will act as follows with respect to each
submitted work plan:
(i) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit if the submitted work plan is complete,
that is, whether the submission contains sufficient information to make
a determination, within 60 calendar days after receipt of the original
work plan and within 60 calendar days after receipt of any
supplementary information.
(ii) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to approve or intention to disapprove the work
plan within 60 calendar days after providing written notification
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section that the submitted work
plan is complete. Any decision to approve a work plan will be made
publicly available.
* * * * *
(iv) The Administrator's final decision to disapprove a work plan
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will set
forth the specific grounds on which the disapproval is based. The final
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of
additional information or argument (if the submitted work plan is
complete), or within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the
submission of additional information or argument under paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(B) of this section, if no such submission is made.
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit a final report via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, by no later than one month before the start
date of the first ozone season identified for the applicable State in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2), certifying that installation of each selected
control device has been completed. You shall include in the report the
dates of final construction and relevant performance testing, where
applicable, demonstrating compliance with the selected emission limits
pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Excess emissions reports
must be submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(4) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (e) of this section to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limits established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(h) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that does
not have low-NOX burners installed and that emits or has a
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX as of
August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i),
or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator that the unit is
subject to this section. The notification shall be submitted in PDF
format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission system provided
by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii).
CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The
notification shall provide the following information:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 52.44 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Affected units'', removing ``Affected units
means'' and adding ``Affected unit means''; and
0
ii. Revising the definition ``Wool fiberglass'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text and paragraph (e)(1)
introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its place
``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. In paragraph (g)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
e. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), removing ``a'';
0
f. In paragraph (g)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (h)'' and adding in
its place ``paragraph (i)'';
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1) introductory text;
[[Page 12732]]
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(1)(vii)(D), (h)(1)(viii), and
(h)(1)(ix) as paragraphs (h)(1)(viii), (h)(1)(ix), and (h)(1)(x),
respectively;
0
i. In paragraph (h)(2), adding a second sentence;
0
j. In paragraph (h)(3), adding a third sentence; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) and paragraph (j)(2)
introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.44 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing Industry?
(a) * * *
Wool fiberglass means fibrous glass of random texture, including
acoustical board and tile (mineral wool), fiberglass insulation, glass
wool, insulation (rock wool, fiberglass, slag, and silica minerals),
and mineral wool roofing mats.
(b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements under this
section if you own or operate a new or existing glass manufacturing
furnace that is located within any of the States listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the borders of any
such State(s), and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons
per year or more of NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a
unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any
existing glass manufacturing furnace with a potential to emit of 100
tons per year or more of NOX on the date specified for the
unit in the preceding sentence will continue to be subject to the
requirements of this section even if that unit later becomes subject to
a physical or operational limitation that lowers its potential to emit
below 100 tons per year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the emissions limitations in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section on a 30-day rolling average basis during
each ozone season identified for the applicable State in Sec.
52.40(c)(2), provided that such emissions limitations shall not apply
to the unit during startup, shutdown, and/or idling in any ozone season
for which the unit complies with the startup requirements in paragraph
(d) of this section, the shutdown requirements in paragraph (e) of this
section, and/or the idling requirements in paragraph (f) of this
section, respectively.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
maintain records of the following information for each day the affected
unit operates during the ozone season consistent with the requirements
of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(2) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(3) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(i) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted
following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you own or operate an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual reports
must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI
or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to
report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must
be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (h) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (g) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(j) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a
State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following
information:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 52.45 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a), in the definition for ``Maximum heat input
capacity'', removing the second ``means'' before ``the ability'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, removing ``paragraph (f)(2)''
and adding in its place ``paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(3)'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, removing ``May 1, 2026'' and
adding in its place ``the start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing ``emission rate'' and adding in its
place ``emissions rate'';
0
h. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, removing ``mmBTU/hr'' and
adding in its place ``mmBtu/hr'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
j. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), removing ``coal and span value'' and adding
in its place ``coal and a span value'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) and paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text;
0
l. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing ``affected units operates'' and
adding in its place ``affected unit operates'';
0
m. In paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), removing ``emission rates''
and adding in its place ``emissions rates'';
0
n. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(iv);
0
o. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
0
p. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text, and paragraphs (e)(2)(v) and (f)(1) through (3); and
0
q. Removing paragraph (f)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
[[Page 12733]]
Sec. 52.45 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills, Metal Ore Mining, and
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industries?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The requirements of this section apply to each new or existing
boiler with a design capacity of 100 mmBtu/hr or greater that received
90% or more of its heat input from coal, residual oil, distillate oil,
natural gas, or combinations of these fuels in the previous ozone
season; is located at sources that are within the Basic Chemical
Manufacturing industry, the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
industry, the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills industry, the Metal Ore
Mining industry, and the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing industry; and is located within any of the States listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s). The requirements of this section do not
apply to an emissions unit that meets the requirements for a low-use
exemption as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that
exceeds the 10% per year hour of operation over three years criterion
or the 20% hours of operation per year criterion, you can no longer
comply via the low-use exemption provisions and must meet the
applicable emissions limits and other applicable provisions as soon as
possible but not later than one year from the date eligibility as a
low-use boiler was negated by exceedance of the low-use boiler
criteria.
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The 1-hour average NOX emissions rates measured by
the CEMS shall be expressed in terms of lbs/mmBtu heat input and shall
be used to calculate the average emissions rates under paragraph (c) of
this section.
* * * * *
(vii) You may delay installing a CEMS for NOX until
after the initial performance test has been conducted. If you
demonstrate during the performance test that emissions of
NOX are less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions
limit in paragraph (c) of this section, you are not required to install
a CEMS for measuring NOX. If you demonstrate your affected
unit emits less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions limit and
choose to not install a CEMS, you must submit a request via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the
Administrator that documents the results of the initial performance
test and includes an alternative monitoring procedure that will be used
to track compliance with the applicable NOX emissions
limit(s) in paragraph (c) of this section. The Administrator may
consider the request and, following public notice and comment, may
approve the alternative monitoring procedure with or without revision,
or disapprove the request. If the Administrator approves the request
for the alternative monitoring procedure, you must request that the
relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring procedure into
the facility's title V permit. Upon receipt of a disapproved request,
you will have one year to install a CEMS.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit with a
heat input capacity less than 250 mmBtu/hr, you must monitor
NOX emissions via the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of
this section or you must monitor NOX emissions by conducting
an annual test in conjunction with the implementation of a monitoring
plan meeting the following requirements:
* * * * *
(iv) You shall submit the monitoring plan to the EPA via CEDRI or
an analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA, and
request that the relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring
plan into the facility's title V permit.
(e) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit which is
not a low-use boiler, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit complying
as a low-use boiler, you must maintain the following records for each
operating day of the calendar year consistent with the requirements of
Sec. 52.40(f):
* * * * *
(v) The annual hours of operation for each of the prior 3 years,
and the 3-year average hours of operation.
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this
section, that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph (c)
of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following
the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
0
10. Amend Sec. 52.46 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Removing the definitions ``mass burn refractory waste combustor'',
``mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass
burn waterwall municipal waste combustor'';
0
ii. Adding the definition ``Municipal solid waste or MSW'' in
alphabetical order; and
[[Page 12734]]
0
iii. In the definition for ``Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or
municipal waste combustor unit'', paragraph (i), removing ``Means any''
and adding in its place ``Any'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing ``and'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), removing ``at 7 percent oxygen'';
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
g. In paragraph (d)(5), removing ``owner and operator'' and adding in
its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, removing ``NOX
are'' and adding in its palace ``NOX emissions are'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(vi) introductory text and paragraphs
(e)(1)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vi)(B), and (e)(2)(vii);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)(iv)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (e)(2)(vi)'';
0
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3);
0
l. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(3);
0
m. In paragraph (f)(4), removing ``occurrence that'' and adding in its
place ``occurrence where'';
0
n. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2); and
0
o. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.46 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
Municipal Waste Combustors?
(a) * * *
Municipal solid waste or MSW means ``municipal solid waste or
municipal-type solid waste or MSW'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.51b.
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations at all
times on a 24-hour block average basis and a 30-day rolling average
basis during each ozone season identified for the applicable State in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2), using NOX measurements corrected to 7
percent oxygen except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(B)
of this section:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Duration of startup and shutdown periods is limited to 3 hours
per occurrence.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) If you select carbon dioxide for use in diluent corrections,
you shall follow the requirements of 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6) to establish
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels:
(A) This relationship shall be established during the initial
performance test and may be reestablished during performance compliance
tests; and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) Each NOX 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) CEMS data, except
that NOX data for an hour identified as falling within a
period of startup or shutdown in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)
through (4) of this section can reflect NOX as measured at
stack oxygen content without such correction.
(vii) The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be expressed in parts
per million by volume (dry basis) and shall be used to calculate the
24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages shall be calculated using the data points required under 40
CFR 60.13(e)(2).
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information, as applicable, for each day the affected unit operates
during the ozone season consistent with the requirements of Sec.
52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(3) Identification of the calendar dates and times (hours) for
which valid hourly NOX emissions data have not been
obtained, including reasons for not obtaining the data and a
description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 24-hour block average NOX
emissions rate or calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
that exceeds the respective emissions limit in paragraph (c) of this
section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following the
procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all information required by
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data required
by paragraph (e) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limits under paragraph (c) of this section.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
11. Add Sec. 52.154 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 52.154 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
(a)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located
in the State of Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Arizona's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and
units, except to the extent
[[Page 12735]]
the Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units
located in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not
subject to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Arizona's SIP.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Arizona's SIP revision
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(b) The owner and operator of each source located in the State of
Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the State and for
which requirements are set forth in Sec. 52.40 and Sec. 52.41, Sec.
52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 must
comply with such requirements with regard to emissions occurring in
2027 and each subsequent year.
Subpart Q--Iowa
0
12. Amend Sec. 52.840 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.840 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Iowa and Indian country within the borders of the State
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Iowa's SIP.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Iowa's SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
Subpart R--Kansas
0
13. Amend Sec. 52.882 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Kansas and Indian country within the borders of the State
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Kansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kansas' SIP.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas' SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
[[Page 12736]]
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
0
14. Add Sec. 52.1641 to subpart GG to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1641 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
(a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of New Mexico and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New
Mexico's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and
units, except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or
conditional. The obligation to comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units located in areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State not subject to the State's SIP authority will
not be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to New Mexico SIP.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of New Mexico's SIP revision
described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
0
15. Amend Sec. 52.2240 by:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second sentence;
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2240 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are set forth under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in
subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such
requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to comply with such requirements will
be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator
of a revision to Tennessee's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii),
except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or
conditional.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee's SIP revision
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State for a control period in any year, the
provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the
Administrator to complete the allocation and recordation of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to such units for each
such control period shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise
by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND SO2
TRADING PROGRAMS, CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND TEXAS SO2
TRADING PROGRAM
0
16. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7491, 7601, and
7651, et seq.
Subpart BBBBB--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program
Sec. 97.502 [Amended]
0
17. Amend Sec. 97.502 in the definition for ``CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance'' by removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e),
or'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
18. Amend Sec. 97.526 by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 97.526 Banking and conversion.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec. 97.826(f)(1), upon
any determination that would otherwise result in the initial
recordation of a given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 allowances in the compliance account for a source in a State
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country
within the borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record
such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances but instead
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2023 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance,
of such given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1
allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section and further divided by the conversion factor
determined under Sec. 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
(e) * * *
[[Page 12737]]
(4) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec. 97.826(f)(1), the
owner or operator of a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 source
in a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and
Indian country within the borders of such a State) may satisfy a
requirement to hold a given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 allowances for the control period in 2015 or 2016 by holding
instead, in a general account established for this sole purpose, an
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the
control period in 2025 (or any later control period for which the
allowance transfer deadline defined in Sec. 97.1002 has passed)
computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such
given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances
divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
of this section and further divided by the conversion factor determined
under Sec. 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
Subpart EEEEE--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
Sec. 97.802 [Amended]
0
19. Amend Sec. 97.802 by:
0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing
``Sec. Sec. 97.526(d), 97.826(d), and 97.1026(e), and'' and adding in
its place ``Sec. Sec. 97.526 and 97.1026, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d), Sec. 97.826(d), or
Sec. 97.1026(e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526, Sec.
97.826, or Sec. 97.1026.''; and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowance'', removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
Sec. 97.810 [Amended]
0
20. Amend Sec. 97.810 in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii), (a)(7)(i)
through (iii), (a)(19)(i) and (ii), and (b)(6), (7), and (19) by
removing ``and thereafter'' and adding in its place ``through 2024''.
Sec. 97.811 [Amended]
0
21. Amend Sec. 97.811(d) heading by adding ``Original'' before ``Group
2 allowances''.
Sec. 97.824 [Amended]
0
22. Amend Sec. 97.824(c)(2)(ii) by removing ``Sec. 97.526(d), Sec.
97.826(d), or Sec. 97.1026(e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec.
97.526, Sec. 97.826, or Sec. 97.1026, in''.
0
23. Amend Sec. 97.826 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) and adding a new
paragraph (f);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing
``this paragraph (f)'' and adding in its place ``this paragraph (g)'';
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (g)(1)(ii)''; and
0
e. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 97.826 Banking and conversion.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The product of the sum of the trading budgets for the control
period in 2024 under Sec. 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for all States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(B) and (C) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21
and further multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the number of
days from August 4, 2023, through September 30, 2023, inclusive, and
whose denominator is 153.
* * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, part 52 of
this chapter, or any SIP revision approved under Sec. 52.38(b)(8) or
(9) of this chapter:
(1) As soon as practicable on or after [45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will temporarily suspend
acceptance of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowance
transfers submitted under Sec. 97.822 and, before resuming acceptance
of such transfers, will take the following actions with regard to every
compliance account for a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
source in a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
(and Indian country within the borders of such a State):
(i) The Administrator will deduct all CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Original Group 2 allowances allocated for the control periods in
2017 through 2024 from each such account.
(ii) The Administrator will determine a conversion factor equal to
the greater of 1.0000 or the quotient, expressed to four decimal
places, of--
(A) The sum of all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group
2 allowances deducted from all such accounts under paragraph (e)(1)(i)
of this section; divided by
(B) The product of the sum of the preset trading budgets for the
control period in 2025 under Sec. 97.1010(a)(2)(i) for all States
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21.
(iii) The Administrator will allocate and record in each such
account an amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for the control period in 2025 computed as the quotient,
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of the number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances deducted from
such account under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section divided by the
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(2) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, upon any determination that
would otherwise result in the initial recordation of a given number of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances in the
compliance account for a source in a State listed in Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record such CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances but instead
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2025 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance,
of such given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
(g) * * *
(3) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of a
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 source in a State listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State) may satisfy a requirement to hold a given
number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances
for a control period in 2017 through 2024 by holding instead, in a
general account established for this sole purpose, an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2025 (or any later control period for which the allowance transfer
deadline defined in Sec. 97.1002 has passed) computed as the quotient,
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such given number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances divided by the
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section.
Subpart GGGGG--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program
Sec. 97.1002 [Amended]
0
24. Amend Sec. 97.1002 by:
[[Page 12738]]
0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing
``Sec. Sec. 97.526(d) and 97.826(d) and (e), and'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. Sec. 97.526 and 97.826, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d) or Sec. 97.826(d)
or (e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526 or Sec. 97.826.'';
and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowance'', removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
25. Amend Sec. 97.1006 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B);
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) introductory text, removing ``paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs
(c)(3)(i)(A) through (D)'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), removing the semicolon and adding in its
place a period.
0
d. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B), removing ``; or'' and adding in its place
a period.
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 97.1006 Standard requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units at the source, of any excess over 50 tons of the sum for
such a unit, for all calendar days of the control period, of any
NOX emissions on any calendar day of the control period
exceeding the NOX emissions that would have occurred on that
calendar day if the unit had combusted the same daily heat input and
emitted at any backstop daily NOX emissions rate applicable
to the unit for that control period.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter.
(ii) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit shall be
subject to the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of
this section for the control period starting on the later of May 1,
2024, or the deadline applicable to the unit under paragraph (c)(3)(i)
of this section and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 97.1010 by:
0
a. In table 1 to paragraph (a)(1)(i) and table 2 to paragraph
(a)(2)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'', ``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New
Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) and (a)(4)(iii)(A);
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B), adding ``applicable'' before ``document
referenced'';
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); and
0
e. In table 6 to paragraph (e)(3)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'',
``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical
order.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1010 State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets, set-
asides, and variability limits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(i)--State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2021-2025
[Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of 2023 Portion of 2023
control period control period on
State 2021 2022 before August 4, and after August 4, 2024 2025
2023, before 2023, before
prorating prorating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona..................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 8,195
* * * * * * *
Iowa........................................................ .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 9,752
Kansas...................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 4,763
* * * * * * *
New Mexico.................................................. .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 2,211
* * * * * * *
Tennessee................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 3,983
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2)(i)--Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2026-2029
[Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 2026 2027 2028 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona......................................... 5,814 4,913 3,949 3,949
[[Page 12739]]
* * * * * * *
Iowa............................................ 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,077
Kansas.......................................... 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763
* * * * * * *
New Mexico...................................... 2,008 2,008 2,008 2,008
* * * * * * *
Tennessee....................................... 3,983 2,666 2,130 1,198
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) The sum for all units in the State meeting the criterion under
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, without regard to whether such
units also meet the criteria under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) of
this section, of the total heat input amounts reported in accordance
with part 75 of this chapter for the historical control periods in the
years two, three, and four years before the year of the control period
for which the dynamic trading budget is being calculated, provided that
for the historical control periods in 2022 and 2023, the total reported
heat input amounts for Nevada and Utah as otherwise determined under
this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,489,332 mmBtu
for Nevada and by 1,888,174 mmBtu for Utah, and provided that for the
historical control periods in 2022, 2023, and 2024, the total reported
heat input amounts for Arizona and New Mexico as otherwise determined
under this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,304,261
mmBtu for Arizona and by 62,445 mmBtu for New Mexico;
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) For a unit listed in the document entitled ``Unit-Specific
Ozone Season NOX Emissions Rates for Dynamic Budget
Calculations'' posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668 (applicable to units located within the borders of States listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter) or the
document entitled ``Unit-Specific Ozone Season NOX Emissions
Rates for Dynamic Budget Calculations for Five Additional States''
posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402
(applicable to units located within the borders of States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter), the NOX
emissions rate used in the calculation for the control period shall be
the NOX emissions rate shown for the unit and control period
in the applicable document.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) 0.11, for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and 2026;
or
(iv) 0.05, for each State for each control period in 2023 and
thereafter except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 6 to Paragraph (e)(3)(i)--State-Level Total Heat Input Used in Calculations of Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2023-2029
[mmBtu]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona........................................... ......... ......... 279,048,607 266,122,691 266,122,691 263,590,069 263,590,069
* * * * * * *
Iowa.............................................. ......... ......... 142,934,126 142,934,126 142,934,126 142,934,126 141,310,860
Kansas............................................ ......... ......... 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293
* * * * * * *
New Mexico........................................ ......... ......... 82,092,237 79,168,874 79,168,874 79,168,874 79,168,874
* * * * * * *
Tennessee......................................... ......... ......... 152,351,271 152,351,271 115,344,086 100,187,179 76,883,950
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 97.1011 by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C)
to read as follows:
Sec. 97.1011 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to
existing units.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
[[Page 12740]]
(B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, a maximum
controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section
shall apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel
during the historical control period for which the unit's heat input
was most recently reported, serving a generator with nameplate capacity
of 100 MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction
controls, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B)
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
historical control period for which the unit's heat input was most
recently reported, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of
100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
(2) For State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 97.1012 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:
Sec. 97.1012 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to
new units.
(a) Allocations from new unit set-asides. For each control period
in 2021 and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units in each State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State (except, for the control periods in 2021 and 2022,
areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject to
the State's SIP authority), the Administrator will allocate CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units as follows:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The first control period for which the State within whose
borders the unit is located is listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A),
(B), (C), or (E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) For the control periods in 2024 and thereafter, a maximum
controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall
apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during
the control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100
MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on
or before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
control period, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100
MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
(2) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 97.1021 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``period in 2021.'' and adding in its
place ``periods in 2021 and 2022.'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e);
0
c. In paragraph (f), removing ``July 1, 2024'' and adding in its place
``July 1, 2026''; and
0
d. Revising paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1021 Recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
allocations and auction results.
* * * * *
(b) By September 5, 2023, the Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control periods in 2023 and
2024.
* * * * *
(d) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2025.
(e) By July 1, 2025, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026,
unless the State in which the source is located is listed in Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter and notifies the Administrator in
writing by [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], of the State's
intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April
1, 2025, meeting the requirements of Sec. 52.38(b)(10)(i) through (iv)
of this chapter.
(1) If, by April 1, 2025, the State does not submit to the
Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record
by July 1, 2025, in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
source's compliance account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
3 allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the
control period in 2026.
(2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and
the Administrator approves by October 1, 2025, such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source as
provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period
in 2026.
(3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and
the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2025, such complete
SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026.
* * * * *
(h) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Administrator will
[[Page 12741]]
record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's
compliance account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(2) for the
control period in the year after the year of the applicable recordation
deadline under this paragraph (h).
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 97.1024 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d) or Sec.
97.826(d) or (e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526 or Sec.
97.826, in''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1024 Compliance with CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 primary
emissions limitation; backstop daily NOX emissions rate.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units at the source to which the backstop daily NOX
emissions rate applies for the control period under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, of any excess over 50 tons for such a unit of the sum
(converted to tons at a conversion factor of 2,000 lb/ton and rounded
to the nearest ton), for all calendar days in the control period, of
any amount by which the unit's NOX emissions for a given
calendar day in pounds exceed the product in pounds of the unit's total
heat input in mmBtu for that calendar day multiplied by 0.14 lb/mmBtu;
or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) For the following States and control periods, the backstop
daily NOX emissions rate shall apply to any CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located within the borders of
the State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100 MW
or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on or
before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(A) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter, the control periods in 2024 and thereafter.
(B) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter, the control periods in 2026 and thereafter.
(ii) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of
this section, for each control period in 2030 and thereafter, the
backstop daily NOX emissions rate shall apply to any other
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located with the borders
of a State except Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Tennessee, or Wisconsin, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel
during the control period, and serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.1025 [Amended]
0
31. Amend Sec. 97.1025(c)(1) introductory text by adding ``in 2024 or
thereafter'' after ``control period''.
0
32. Amend Sec. 97.1026 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 97.1026 Banking and conversion; bank recalibration.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance bank
ceiling target for the control period in the year of the deadline under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, calculated as the product, rounded to
the nearest allowance, of the sum for all States identified for the
control period in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section of the State
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets under Sec.
97.1010(a) for such States for such control period multiplied by--
* * * * *
(iii) The States whose trading budgets will be included in the
calculation of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
bank ceiling target for each control period are as follows:
(A) For the control periods in 2024 and 2025, the States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter.
(B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, the States
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and (E) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
0
33. Amend Sec. 97.1030 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), removing the period and adding in its place
``; or''; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 97.1030 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter;
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec. 97.1034 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(C), adding ``or'' after the semicolon; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 97.1034 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) The calendar quarter covering May 1, 2025, through June 30,
2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within the borders of
such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-01064 Filed 2-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
