[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17123-17131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08137]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0142; FRL-9976-96--Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; 2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate
Transport SIP Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Kentucky's February 28, 2018, draft State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) that was submitted by Kentucky for
parallel processing. The good neighbor provision requires each state's
SIP to address the interstate transport of air pollution in amounts
that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other state. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Kentucky's draft submission demonstrating that no
additional emission reductions are necessary to address the good
neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS beyond those required by
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update) federal
implementation plan (FIP). Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve
Kentucky's draft submission as partially addressing the requirements of
the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and resolving any
obligation remaining under the good neighbor provision after
promulgation of the CSAPR Update FIP. EPA is proposing this action
because it is consistent with the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. at EPA-
R04-OAR-2018-0142 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashten Bailey, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bailey can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9164 or
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS
that revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone
standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Pursuant to
CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), states must submit
SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2). EPA
has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose
of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. One of the structural requirements
of section 110(a)(2) is section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the
``good neighbor'' provision, which generally requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from
having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting
any air pollutant in amounts that will
[[Page 17124]]
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses
only prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All other infrastructure SIP elements for Kentucky for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate rulemakings. See
78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013) and 79 FR 65143 (November 3, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 17, 2012, Kentucky submitted a SIP submission to EPA,
addressing a number of the CAA requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. With respect to the interstate transport
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA disapproved the submission,
effective April 8, 2013 (78 FR 14681). In the notice, EPA explained
that the disapproval of the good neighbor portion of the Commonwealth's
infrastructure SIP submission did not trigger a mandatory duty for EPA
to promulgate a FIP to address these requirements. Id. at 14683. Citing
the D.C. Circuit's decision EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 41 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (EME Homer City I), EPA explained that the
court concluded states have no obligation to make a SIP submission to
address the good neighbor provision for a new or revised NAAQS until
EPA first defines a state's obligations pursuant to that section.
Therefore, because a good neighbor SIP addressing the 2008 ozone
standard was not at that time required, EPA indicated that its
disapproval action would not trigger an obligation for EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport requirements. On
April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing and
vacating the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City I. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). EPA subsequently
finalized a determination that the FIP obligation was triggered on the
date of the judgment issued in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, or on
June 2, 2014. See 81 FR 74504, 74513 (October 26, 2016).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On April 30, 2013, Sierra Club filed a petition for review
of EPA's final action disapproving Kentucky's good neighbor SIP in
the Sixth Circuit based on the Agency's conclusion that the FIP
obligation was not triggered by the disapproval of Kentucky's good
neighbor SIP. Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546 (6th Cir., filed
Apr. 30, 2013). Following the Supreme Court decision, EPA requested,
and the Sixth Circuit granted, vacatur and remand of the portion of
EPA's final action on Kentucky's good neighbor SIP that determined
that the FIP obligation was not triggered by the disapproval. See
Order, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 13-3546 (Mar. 13, 2015), ECF No.
74-1. On October 24, 2016 (81 FR 74513), EPA issued a final action
correcting the portion of the Kentucky disapproval notice indicating
that the FIP obligation would not be triggered by the SIP
disapproval, but rather on the date of the Supreme Court's judgment.
EPA explained that the FIP obligation was not triggered as of the
date of the SIP disapproval because the controlling law as of that
date was the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City I, which held
that states had no obligation to submit a SIP and EPA had no
authority to issue a FIP until EPA first quantified each state's
emission reduction obligation under the good neighbor provision.
Rather, EPA concluded that the FIP obligation was triggered when the
Supreme Court clarified the state and federal obligations with
respect to the good neighbor provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2016, EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate
transport of air pollution for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016). In the CSAPR Update rulemaking, EPA determined that
air pollution transported from Kentucky would unlawfully affect other
states' ability to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
established an ozone season nitrogen oxide (NOX) budget for
Kentucky's electricity generating units (EGUs).\3\ In particular, EPA
found that Kentucky was linked to four maintenance-only receptors in
Harford County, Maryland; Richmond County, New York; Hamilton County,
Ohio; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Kentucky EGUs meeting the
CSAPR applicability criteria are consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs
that require participation in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program, the CSAPR sulfur dioxide (SO2) Group 1 Trading
Program, and the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading
Program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CSAPR Update, 81 FR at 74507-08.
\4\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2)(i), (b)(2), (b)(2)(iii); 52.39(b);
52.940(a), (b); 52.941(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that the CSAPR FIP for Kentucky and
20 other states may provide only a partial remedy with respect to the
good neighbor provision requirements as to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA's analysis showed persisting downwind air quality problems after
implementation of the CSAPR Update in 2017, including two of the
receptors to which Kentucky was linked in Harford County, Maryland, and
Richmond County, New York. Because EPA's analysis showed persisting
downwind air quality problems and did not assess available emissions
reductions after 2017, EPA could not definitively conclude, without
further analysis, that the CSAPR Update fully addressed the
requirements of the good neighbor provision in upwind states, including
Kentucky. See 81 FR at 74521.
On October 27, 2017, EPA issued a memorandum \5\ with technical
information and related analyses to assist states with developing SIPs
to address the remaining section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the technical analysis related to the
October 2017 Transport Memo, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to
identify locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipates there will be
nonattainment or maintenance problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in the year 2023 (these are identified as nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, respectively). This analysis used the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) \6\ to model the 2011
base year, and 2023 future base case emissions scenarios to identify
projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\7\ The updated modeling data released with the
October 2017 Transport Memo is the most up-to-date information EPA has
developed to inform the Agency's analysis of downwind air quality
problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\8\ EPA's updated modeling for
the 2023 future base case emissions scenarios indicates that there are
no monitoring sites, outside of California, that are projected to have
nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Memorandum, Stephen D. Page, Supplemental Information on the
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air
Action Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (October 2017 Transport Memo).
\6\ CAMx v6.40 was the most recent public release version of
CAMx at the time EPA updated its modeling in fall 2017.
``Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions version 6.40
User's Guide'' Ramboll Environ, December 2016. http://www.camx.com/.
\7\ For the updated modeling, EPA used the construct of the
modeling platform (i.e., modeling domain and non-emissions inputs)
that we used for the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) modeling,
except that the photolysis rates files were updated to be consistent
with CAMx v6.40. The NODA Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document describing the modeling platform is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/notice-data-availability-preliminary-interstate-ozone-transport-modeling-data-2015-ozone.
\8\ October 2017 Transport Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17125]]
II. Kentucky's Draft SIP Submission
On February 28, 2018, Kentucky provided a draft SIP submission to
address the remaining interstate transport obligations for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, which contains a demonstration \9\ that the emission
reductions required by the CSAPR Update are adequate to prohibit
emissions within Kentucky from significantly contributing to
nonattainment, or interfering with the maintenance, of downwind states
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This demonstration shows that,
based on the Commonwealth's current and projected emissions, air
quality modeling data, and on-the-books state and federal measures
reducing ozone precursor emissions, including the CSAPR Update FIP,
emissions from Kentucky will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment, or interfere with the maintenance, of downwind states
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As discussed above, EPA previously disapproved the portion
of the Kentucky's July 17, 2012, SIP submission as it related to
prongs 1 and 2. See 78 FR 14681 (March 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its February 28, 2018, draft submission, Kentucky reviewed air
quality modeling and data files that EPA disseminated in the October
2017 Transport Memo, which indicated that the air quality problems at
monitors to which Kentucky was linked in the CSAPR Update would be
resolved in 2023. Kentucky's draft SIP submission agrees with the
October 2017 Transport Memo's preliminary projections, and provides
information intended to demonstrate that use of the modeling is
appropriate. In addition, the draft submission contains air quality
modeling conducted by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, that concludes that none
of the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the CSAPR
Update are predicted to be in nonattainment or have issues with
maintenance in 2023. Additionally, Kentucky cites information related
to emissions trends--such as reductions in ozone precursor emissions
and controls on Kentucky sources--as further evidence that, after
implementation of all on-the-books measures including those identified
in the CSAPR Update, emissions from the Commonwealth will no longer
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Kentucky requests that EPA approve the draft SIP submission and
find that Kentucky is not required to make any further reductions,
beyond those required by the CSAPR Update, to address its statutory
obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA is parallel processing Kentucky's draft SIP submittal.
As discussed in more detail in Section IV, below, final approval of
Kentucky's submission is contingent on Kentucky's submission of a
final SIP submittal that does not differ significantly from the
draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's Draft Submission
In Kentucky's draft submission, the Commonwealth relies on modeling
performed by EPA, which was summarized in the October 2017 Transport
Memo, in support of its conclusion that the emissions reductions
required by the CSAPR Update are adequate to prohibit emissions within
Kentucky from significantly contributing to nonattainment, or
interfering with the maintenance, of downwind states with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, before undertaking the specific
analysis of Kentucky's SIP submittal, it is helpful to understand how
EPA developed the October 2017 Transport Memorandum. EPA applied the
same four-step framework used in previous federal regulatory actions
addressing interstate transport of ozone pollution, including most
recently the CSAPR Update. While some aspects of these previous
regulatory actions have been challenged in court--and some aspects of
these challenges have been upheld--each of these rulemakings
essentially followed the same four-step interstate transport framework
to quantify and implement emission reductions necessary to address the
interstate transport requirements of the good neighbor provision. These
steps are described in the following four paragraphs.
(1) Identifying downwind air quality problems relative to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA has historically identified downwind areas with air
quality problems considering monitored ozone data where appropriate and
air quality modeling projections to a future compliance year. In the
CSAPR Update, the Agency identified not only those areas expected to be
in nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS, but also those areas that may
struggle to maintain the NAAQS, despite clean monitored data or
projected attainment.
(2) Determining which upwind states are ``linked'' to these
identified downwind air quality problems and thereby warrant further
analysis to determine whether their emissions violate the good neighbor
provision. In CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, EPA identified such upwind
states as those modeled to contribute at or above a threshold
equivalent to one percent of the applicable NAAQS. Upwind states linked
to one of these downwind nonattainment or maintenance areas were then
evaluated to determine what level of emissions reductions, if any,
should be required of each state.
(3) For states linked to downwind air quality problems, identifying
upwind emissions on a statewide basis that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of a standard. In all of
EPA's prior rulemakings addressing interstate ozone pollution
transport, the Agency apportioned emission reduction responsibility
among multiple upwind states linked to downwind air quality problems by
considering feasible NOX control strategies and using cost-
based and air quality-based criteria to quantify the amount of a linked
upwind state's emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance in another state.
(4) For states that are found to have emissions that significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
downwind, implementing the necessary emission reductions within the
state. EPA has done this by requiring affected sources in upwind states
to participate in allowance trading programs (e.g., the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program) to achieve the
necessary emission reductions.
EPA's proposed action on Kentucky's draft submission is based on a
finding that 2023 is a reasonable analytic year for evaluating ozone
transport problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that
interstate ozone transport air quality modeling projections for 2023
indicate that Kentucky is not expected to significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states. As explained in more detail in the following
paragraphs, EPA's selection of 2023 as a reasonable analytic year is
supported by an assessment of attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and feasibility for control strategies to reduce NOX in
CSAPR Update states, including Kentucky. EPA's assessment of
NOX control strategy feasibility prioritizes NOX
control strategies in CSAPR Update states that would be additional to
those strategies that were already quantified into CSAPR Update
emissions budgets. EPA proposes that 2023 is an appropriate future
analytic year because it is the first ozone season for which
significant new cost-effective post-combustion controls to reduce
NOX
[[Page 17126]]
could be feasibly installed across the CSAPR Update region, and thus
represents the timeframe that is as expeditious as practicable for
upwind states to implement additional emission reductions. EPA's
analysis of steps 1 and 2 for the 2023 analytic year indicates that
there are no expected eastern nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in this future year. Together, these findings
support EPA's proposed approval of Kentucky's SIP submittal, which is
based on the determination that Kentucky is not expected to
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states in 2023.
A. Additional Information Regarding Selection of an Analytic Year
One of the first steps in conducting air quality modeling analysis
to evaluate steps 1 and 2 of the four-step interstate transport
framework is selecting a future analytic year. In determining the
appropriate future analytic year for purposes of assessing remaining
interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
Kentucky's, EPA considered two primary factors: Attainment dates and
NOX control feasibility.
First, EPA considered the downwind attainment dates for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. In North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that
emissions reductions required by the good neighbor provision should be
evaluated considering the relevant attainment dates of downwind
nonattainment areas impacted by interstate transport.\11\ The next
attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be July 20, 2021, for
nonattainment areas classified as serious and July 20, 2027, for
nonattainment areas classified as severe.\12\ Because the various
attainment deadlines are in July, which is in the middle of the ozone
monitoring season for all states, data from the calendar year prior to
the attainment date (e.g., data from 2020 for the 2021 attainment date
and from 2026 for the 2027 attainment date) are the last data that can
be used to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. In all cases, the
statute provides that areas should attain as expeditiously as
practicable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that EPA
must coordinate interstate transport compliance deadlines with
downwind attainment deadlines).
\12\ While there are no areas (outside of California) that are
classified as either serious or severe, these classifications (and
the associated attainment dates) are required under the statute in
the event that the many downwind moderate nonattainment areas fail
to attain by their attainment date of July 20, 2018.
\13\ See CAA section 181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA considered the timeframes that may be required for
implementing further emissions reductions as expeditiously as
practicable. In considering potential emissions reductions, EPA notes
that emissions levels are already expected to decline in the future
through implementation of existing local, state and federal emissions
reduction programs. This is an important consideration because the U.S.
Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court have both held that EPA may
not require emissions reductions greater than necessary to achieve
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind areas.\14\
Therefore, if new controls cannot be implemented feasibly for several
years and air quality will likely be cleaner in the future, EPA should
evaluate air quality in a future year to ensure that any potential
emissions reductions would not over-control relative to the identified
ozone problem. Accordingly, it is reasonable to evaluate downwind air
quality, and identify any remaining receptors, in the year in which EPA
expects additional emissions reductions, if any, to be implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014); EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For its analysis of NOX control feasibility, EPA
believes that the feasibility of control strategies should reflect the
time needed to plan for, install, and test new EGU and non-EGU
NOX reduction strategies across multiple states. This
conclusion is based on previous interstate ozone transport analyses
showing that multiple upwind states are typically linked to identified
eastern downwind ozone problems.\15\ In particular, EPA's assessment in
the CSAPR Update indicated that, with respect to the Harford and
Richmond receptors to which Kentucky was linked, eight other states and
the District of Columbia would continue to be linked to the Harford
receptor and seven other states would continue to be linked to the
Richmond receptor after implementation of the CSAPR Update in 2017.\16\
Thus, to evaluate potential upwind obligations for one of several
states linked to a common downwind air quality problem, EPA believes
the most appropriate approach is to evaluate potential NOX
control strategies on a regional, rather than state-specific, basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\16\ See EPA's Air Quality Assessment Tool from the CSAPR Update
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPA believes that the feasibility of new emissions
controls should be considered on multiple upwind source categories in
order to ensure that the Agency properly evaluates NOX
reduction potential and cost-effectiveness (at step 3 of the framework)
from all reasonable control measures (including beyond the EGU sector).
Major NOX emissions come from multiple anthropogenic source
categories, such as electric utilities and industrial facilities. As
commenters noted during the development of the CSAPR Update, EGUs in
the eastern U.S. have been the subject of regulation to address
interstate ozone pollution transport and have made significant
financial investments to achieve emission reductions. While EPA
evaluates additional control feasibility for EGUs in the discussion
that follows, non-EGU source categories may also be well-positioned to
cost-effectively reduce NOX relative to EGUs, including non-
EGUs that currently do not report emissions to EPA under 40 CFR part 75
and for which EPA's information concerning emissions levels, existing
control efficiencies, and further emissions reduction potential is
therefore more uncertain.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission Controls,
Cost of Controls, and Time for Compliance Final technical support
document (TSD) from the CSAPR Update in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the CSAPR Update EGU NOX ozone season
emission budgets, EPA quantified the emission reductions achievable
from all NOX control strategies that were feasible within
one year and cost-effective at a marginal cost of $1,400 per ton of
NOX removed.\18\ These EGU NOX control strategies
were: Fully operating existing Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR),
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing,
operational SCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs;
installing state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls; and
shifting generation to existing units with lower-NOX
emission rates within the same state. For the purposes of this proposed
action on Kentucky's draft submission, EPA considers these
NOX control strategies to have been appropriately evaluated
in the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Further, the Agency believes that the
resulting CSAPR Update emission budgets are being appropriately
implemented under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
[[Page 17127]]
allowance trading program. Therefore, EPA has focused its further
assessment on feasibility of controls that were deemed to be infeasible
to install for the 2017 ozone season in the CSAPR Update for purposes
of identifying an appropriate future analytic year rather than
reassessing controls previously analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The CSAPR Update was signed on September 7, 2016--
approximately 8 months before the beginning of the 2017 ozone season
on May 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA identified, but did not account for, the following two EGU
NOX control strategies in establishing the CSAPR Update
emissions budgets because implementation by 2017 was not considered
feasible: Installing new SCRs and selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) controls. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that EGU SCR post-
combustion controls can achieve up to 90 percent reduction in EGU
NOX emissions. In 2017, these controls were in widespread
use by EGUs in the east. In the 22 state CSAPR Update region,
approximately 59 percent of coal-fired EGU heat input and 64 percent of
natural gas-fired EGU generation was equipped with SCR.\19\ Installing
new SCR controls for EGUs not already equipped with such controls
generally involves conducting an engineering review of the facility and
awarding a procurement contract; obtaining a construction permit;
installing the control technology; and obtaining an operating
permit.\20\ The total time associated with navigating these steps is
estimated to be up to 39 months for an individual power plant
installing SCR on more than one boiler.\21\ However, for the purposes
of evaluating the installation timing for new SCR controls at the
fleet-level, rather than the unit-level, within the CSAPR Update
region, EPA believes more time would be needed. As explained more fully
below, EPA determined that a minimum of 48 months is a reasonable time
to allow for the coordination of outages, shepherding of labor and
material supply, and identification of retrofit projects. This time
frame would facilitate multiple power plants with multiple boilers to
conduct all stages of post-combustion and combustion control project
planning, installation and operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Heat input is a proxy for the distribution of electricity
generation across the evaluated EGUs.
\20\ Final Report: Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting
the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant
Strategies (``Engineering and Economic Factors Report''), EPA-600/R-
02/073, October 2002 (available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001G0O.pdf).
\21\ Engineering and Economic Factors Report, Table 3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled curtailment, or planned outage, for pollution control
installation would be necessary to complete either SCR or SNCR
projects. Given that peak demand and rule compliance would both fall in
the ozone-season, sources would likely try to schedule installation
projects for the shoulder season (i.e., the spring and/or fall when
electricity demand is lower than in the peak summer season) when
reserve margins are higher and compliance requirements are not yet in
effect. If multiple units were under the same timeline to complete the
retrofit projects as soon as feasible from an engineering perspective,
this could lead to bottlenecks of scheduled outages as each unit is
trying to start and finish in roughly the same compressed time. Thus,
any compliance timeframe that would assume installation of new SCR or
SNCR controls should allow multiple shoulder seasons to accommodate
scheduling of curtailment for control installation purposes and better
accommodate the regional nature of the program.
In addition to the coordination of scheduled curtailment, an
appropriate compliance timeframe should accommodate the additional
coordination of labor and material supply necessary for any fleet-wide
mitigation efforts. The total construction labor for an SCR system
associated with a 500 megawatt (MW) EGU is in the range of 300,000 to
500,000 man-hours, with boilermakers\22\ accounting for approximately
half of this time.\23\ SNCR, while generally having shorter project
time frames of 10 to 13 months from bid solicitation to start-up, share
similar labor and material resources and therefore are linked to the
timing of SCR installation planning. In recent industry surveys, one of
the largest shortages of union craft workers was for boilermakers. This
shortage of skilled boilermakers is expected to rise due to an
anticipated nine percent increase in boilermaker labor demand growth by
2026, coupled with expected retirements and comparatively low numbers
of apprentices joining the workforce.\24\ The shortage of and demand
for skilled labor, including other craft workers critical to pollution
control installation, is pronounced in the manufacturing industry. The
Association of Union Constructors (TAUC) conducted a survey of
identified labor shortages where boilermakers were second to most
frequently reported skilled labor market with a labor shortage.\25\
Moreover, the natural disasters of Hurricane Harvey and wildfires in
2017 are expected to further tighten the labor supply market in
manufacturing in the near term.\26\ EPA considered these tight labor
market conditions (which were compounded by Hurricane Irma) for the
manufacturing roles critical, and combined with fleet-level mitigation
initiatives, would likely lead to some sequencing and staging of labor
pool usage, rather than simultaneous construction across all efforts.
Allowing a timeframe that exceeds the demonstrated single-unit
installation is therefore appropriate for fleet-wide programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A boilermaker is a trained and skilled craftsman who
produces steel fabrications (in this context, boilers).
\23\ See Engineering and Economic Factors Report, Table 3-1.
\24\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Outlook Handbook, Boilermakers, on the internet at
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/boilermakers.htm
(last modified on January 30, 2018).
\25\ Union Craft Labor Supply Survey, The Association of Union
Constructors, Exhibit 4-2 at page 29, available at https://www.tauc.org/files/2017_TAUC_UNION_CRAFT_LABOR_SUPPLY_REVISEDBC_FINAL.pdf (2017).
\26\ Skilled Wage Growth Less Robust, Worker Shortage Still and
Issue. Industry Week (October 23, 2017), available at http://www.industryweek.com/talent/skilled-wage-growth-less-robust-worker-shortage-still-issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to labor supply, NOX post-combustion control
projects also require materials and equipment such as steel and cranes.
Sheet metal workers used in steel production are also reported as
having well above an average supply-side shortage of labor. This--
coupled with growth in steel demand estimated at three percent in 2018
and the simultaneous growth in global economies--puts upward pressure
on demand for steel.\27\ Similarly, cranes are critical for
installation of SCRs, which often need to be lifted hundreds of feet in
the air. Cranes are also facing higher demand during periods of
economic growth with companies reporting a shortage in both equipment
and manpower.\28\ \29\ This tightening labor, materials, and equipment
atmosphere combined with the regional aspect of a pollution
transportation program puts upward pressure on installation timetables
relative to what has been historically demonstrated at the unit-level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Worldsteel Short Range Outlook (October 16, 2017),
available at https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2017/worldsteel-Short-Range-Outlook-2017-2018.html.
\28\ Seattle Has Most Cranes in the Country for 2nd Year in a
Row--and Lead is Growing, Seattle Times (July 11, 2017), available
at https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattle-has-most-cranes-in-the-country-for-2nd-year-in-a-row-and-lead-is-growing/.
\29\ See Rider Levett Bucknall Crane Index--January 2018 in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The time lag identified between planning and in-service date of SCR
and SNCR operations also illustrates that conditions sometimes lead to
[[Page 17128]]
installation times of 4 years or longer. For instance, SCR projects for
units at Ottumwa, Columbia, and Oakley Generating Station were all
being planned by 2014. However, these projects had estimated in-service
dates ranging between 2018 and 2021.\30\ Completed projects, when large
in scale, also illustrate how timelines can extend beyond the bare
minimum necessary for a single unit when the project is part of a
larger multi-unit air quality initiative. For instance, Big Bend in
Florida recently completed a multi-faceted project that involved adding
SCRs to all four units, converting furnaces, making overfire air
changes, and making windbox modifications. The completion time from the
initial planning stages was a decade.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 2014 EIA Form 860, Schedule 6, Environmental Control
Equipment.
\31\ Big Bend's Multi-Unit SCR Retrofit. Power Magazine. March
1, 2010. Available at http://www.powermag.com/big-bends-multi-unit-scr-retrofit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While individual unit-level SCR and SNCR projects can average 39
and 10 months respectively going from bid to start up, a comprehensive
and regional emissions reduction effort requires more time to
accommodate the labor, materials, and outage coordination. And since
these post-combustion control strategies share similar input resources
and are part of regional reduction programs rather than unit-specific
technology mandates, the timeframes for one are inherently linked to
another. This means that SNCR projects cannot simply be put on an early
schedule because of the reduced construction timing without impacting
the available resources to SCRs and the potential start dates of those
projects. Given the market and regulatory circumstances in which EPA
evaluated this effort, it determined that 4 years would be a reasonable
time to coordinate the planning and completion of any mitigation
efforts necessary in this instance.
In the CSAPR Update, EPA also evaluated the feasibility of
NOX controls on non-EGUs in the eastern United States,
finding that there was greater uncertainty in the assessment of non-EGU
point-source NOX mitigation potential as compared to
EGUs.\32\ EPA explained in the CSAPR Update that more time was required
for states and EPA to improve non-EGU point source data, including data
on existing control efficiencies, additional applicable pollution
control technologies, and installation times for those control
technologies. Further, using the best information available to EPA,
which was submitted for public comment with the proposed CSAPR Update,
EPA found that there were more non-EGU point sources than EGU sources
and that these sources on average emit less NOX than EGUs.
The implication was that there were more individual sources to control
and there were relatively fewer emissions reductions available from
each source, reducing the cost-effectiveness of controls. Further,
another factor influencing uncertainty was that EPA lacks sufficient
information on the capacity and experience of suppliers and major
engineering firms' supply chains to determine if they would be able to
install the required pollution controls for non-EGU sources in less
than 48 months. Considering these factors, EPA found substantial
uncertainty regarding whether significant aggregate NOX
mitigation would be achievable from non-EGU point sources to address
the 2008 ozone NAAQS any earlier than the timelines noted in EPA's
analysis of new EGU post-combustion control feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Assessment of Non-EGU NOX Emission Controls,
Cost of Controls, and Time for Compliance Final TSD from the CSAPR
Update in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in the CSAPR Update, EPA also identified one EGU
NOX control strategy that was considered feasible to
implement within one year but was not cost-effective at a marginal cost
of $1,400 per ton of NOX removed: Specifically, turning on
existing idled SNCRs. In the CSAPR Update, EPA identified a marginal
cost of $3,400 per ton as the level of uniform control stringency that
represents turning on and fully operating idled SNCRs.\33\ However, the
CSAPR Update finalized emission budgets using $1,400 per ton control
stringency, finding that this level of stringency represented the
control level at which incremental EGU NOX reductions and
corresponding downwind ozone air quality improvements were maximized
with respect to marginal cost. In finding that use of the $1,400
control cost level was appropriate, EPA established that the more
stringent emission budget level reflecting $3,400 per ton (representing
turning on idled SNCR) yielded fewer additional emission reductions and
fewer air quality improvements relative to the increase in control
costs. In other words, based on information available at that time,
establishing emission budgets at $3,400 per ton was not determined to
be cost-effective for addressing good neighbor provision obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74550 (Oct. 26, 2016). EPA believes
that its assessment of turning on and fully operating SNCRs was
appropriately evaluated in the CSAPR Update with respect to addressing
interstate ozone pollution transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, in this proposal EPA is not prioritizing the assessment of
this control strategy in terms of identifying an appropriate future
analytic year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final Rule
TSD, docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0554, available at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to assume that
planning for, installing, and commencing operation of new controls for
both EGUs and non-EGUs would take up to 48 months following
promulgation of a final rule requiring appropriate emission reductions.
Specifically, EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume that the
installation of new post-combustion controls for state- or regional-
level fleets of EGUs or controls for non-EGU point sources may take up
to 4 years following promulgation of a final rule.\34\ For purposes of
conducting updated modeling to determine in what year future emissions
reductions might be implemented, EPA, therefore, considered the
timeframe in which a future rulemaking that might require such
emissions reductions would likely be finalized. While EPA is subject to
several statutory and court-ordered deadlines to address the
requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
EPA does not believe that it is feasible, at this point, to finalize
action requiring emission reductions for any state prior to the start
of the 2018 ozone season (i.e., May 1, 2018).\35\ Accordingly,
implementation of any of the control strategies considered herein is
likely not feasible until during or after the 2022 ozone season.
Considering the time to implement the controls with the time to
promulgate a final rule, EPA believes that such reductions are unlikely
to be implemented for a full ozone season until 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 81 FR 74562 (October 26, 2016).
\35\ Using the 2023 analytic year also allowed EPA to begin the
updated analysis using the data sets originally developed for the
January 2017 NODA (82 FR 1733, January 6, 2017), which we revised in
response to stakeholder feedback. Accordingly, EPA initiated its
analysis more quickly than if a different year had been chosen,
which might have delayed subsequent rulemaking actions and therefore
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While 2023 is later than the next attainment date for nonattainment
areas classified as Serious (July 20, 2021), as explained earlier, EPA
does not believe it is likely that emissions control requirements could
be promulgated and implemented by the serious area attainment date.
Likewise, EPA also
[[Page 17129]]
believes that it would not be reasonable to assume that emissions
reductions could be postponed to the attainment date for nonattainment
areas classified as severe (July 20, 2027) because the statute
instructs states to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.
Accordingly, EPA believes implementation of additional emission
reductions would be as expeditiously as practicable in light of
relevant attainment dates.
In conclusion, in selecting its future analytic year for the air
quality modeling, EPA balanced considerations such as attainment dates
in downwind states, including the obligation to attain as expeditiously
as practicable, EPA's obligation to avoid unnecessary over-control of
upwind state emissions, the timeframe in which any necessary emissions
reductions could be feasibly implemented, and the timeframe required
for rulemaking to impose any such emissions reductions that might be
required. In light of these considerations, EPA believes that 2023 is a
reasonable year to assess downwind air quality to evaluate any
remaining requirements under the good neighbor provision for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
B. EPA's Air Quality Modeling
EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
v6.40) \36\ for modeling the updated emissions in 2011 and 2023.\37\
EPA used outputs from the 2011 and 2023 model simulations to project
base period 2009-2013 average and maximum ozone design values to 2023
at monitoring sites nationwide. EPA's modeling guidance \38\ recommends
that model predictions from the ``3 x 3'' array of grid cells
surrounding the location of the monitoring site be used in the
projection of future year design values. EPA used this approach for
projecting design values for the updated 2023 modeling. In addition, in
light of comments on the January 2017 NODA and other analyses, EPA also
projected 2023 design values based on a modified version of this
approach for those monitoring sites located in coastal areas. In brief,
in the alternative approach, EPA eliminated from the design value
calculations those modeling data in grid cells not containing a
monitoring site that are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent
of the land use in the grid cell is water).39 40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ CAMx v6.40 was the most recent public release version of
CAMx at the time EPA updated its modeling in Fall 2017.
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension version 6.40 User's
Guide,'' Ramboll Environ, December 2016, available at http://www.camx.com/. For the emissions information, see TSD: Additional
Updates to Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions
Modeling Platform for the Year 2023, October 2017. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2011-version-63-platform.
\37\ For the updated modeling, EPA used the construct of the
modeling platform (i.e., modeling domain and non-emissions inputs)
that we used for the NODA modeling, except that the photolysis rates
files were updated to be consistent with CAMx v6.40. The NODA Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document describing the modeling
platform is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/notice-data-availability-preliminary-interstate-ozone-transport-modeling-data-2015-ozone.
\38\ Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2s, and Regional Haze (Dec. 13, 2014),
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/Draft_O3-PM-RH_Modeling_Guidance-2014.pdf.
\39\ A model grid cell is identified as a ``water'' cell if more
than 50 percent of the grid cell is water based on the 2006 National
Land Cover Database. Grid cells that meet this criterion are treated
as entirely over water in the Weather Research Forecast (WRF)
modeling used to develop the 2011 meteorology for EPA's air quality
modeling.
\40\ The base period and 2023 average and maximum design values
at individual monitoring sites for both the ``3 x 3'' approach and
the alternative approach affecting coastal sites are available in a
file at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/october-2017-memo-and-information-interstate-transport-sips-2008-ozone-naaqs. This file
also contains 2014-2016 measured design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When identifying areas with potential downwind air quality
problems, EPA's updated modeling used the same ``receptor'' definitions
as those developed during the CSAPR rulemaking process and used in the
CSAPR Update.\41\ That is, EPA identified nonattainment receptors as
those monitoring sites with current measured values exceeding the NAAQS
that also have projected (i.e., in 2023) average design values
exceeding the NAAQS. EPA identified maintenance receptors as those
monitoring sites with current measured values below the NAAQS and
projected average and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. EPA
also identified as maintenance receptors those monitoring sites with
projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected
maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. As with past application of
receptor definitions, EPA considered all nonattainment receptors to
also be maintenance receptors because a monitoring site with a
projected average design value above the standard necessarily also has
a projected maximum design value above the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 81 FR 74530 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2023 updated modeling, using either the ``3 x 3'' approach or
the alternative approach described above for projecting design values
for monitoring sites in coastal areas, indicates that there are no
monitoring sites outside of California that are projected to have
nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in 2023.\42\ Specifically for Kentucky, EPA's modeling for the
CSAPR Update showed that emissions from Kentucky were linked to 2017
maintenance receptors in Harford Co., MD, Hamilton Co., OH,
Philadelphia Co., PA, and Richmond Co., NY. As indicated above, EPA's
updated 2023 modeling shows that these monitoring sites--along with all
other sites outside of California--will have nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems resolved with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ This information is available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/october-2017-memo-and-information-interstate-transport-sips-2008-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Conclusions
As discussed above, Kentucky's draft submission demonstrates that
emission activities from the State will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state after implementation of all on-the-books
measures, including the CSAPR Update. EPA's modeling indicates that
there are no monitoring sites (outside of California) that are
projected to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023, and EPA's analysis supports the use of
2023 as the proper analytic year. Kentucky has provided information
that shows the use of this modeling is appropriate in this context,
such as emissions trends data and information about on-the-books
controls that supports the likelihood of reduced emissions from
Kentucky between 2017 and 2023. For example, Kentucky's submission
notes that retirements of coal-fired units at the E.W. Brown Generating
Station and the Elmer Smith Plant are planned to occur before 2023,
which means that emissions of NOX from Kentucky sources will
be even lower than EPA's modeling projects. In addition, Kentucky's
draft submission contains air quality modeling conducted by Alpine
Geophysics, LLC, that similarly concludes that none of the
nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the CSAPR Update
are predicted to be in nonattainment or have issues with maintenance in
2023.
Because Kentucky is not linked to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2023, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's
draft SIP submission and to determine that--after implementation of all
on-the-books measures, including the CSAPR
[[Page 17130]]
Update--emissions from the Commonwealth will no longer contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.HD1P>IV. Parallel Processing
Parallel processing refers to a concurrent state and federal
proposed rulemaking action. Generally, the state submits a copy of the
proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its
public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is
published in the Federal Register during the same timeframe that the
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and federal
action, respectively. If the state's formal SIP revision is changed
from the draft SIP revision, EPA will evaluate those changes and may
publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. A final rulemaking
action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted
by Kentucky and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the
SIP.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air
Quality (DAQ), requested parallel processing of the February 28, 2018
draft SIP revision regarding the ``good neighbor'' provision of the
CAA. This revision was noticed for public comment by the Commonwealth
on March 1, 2018, and is not yet state-effective. Through this proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing parallel approval of this draft SIP
revision.
Once the February 28, 2018, draft revision is state-effective,
Kentucky will need to provide EPA with a formal SIP revision that meets
the requirements outlined in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V ``Criteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions.'' After Kentucky
submits the formal SIP revision (including a response to any public
comments raised during the State's public participation process), EPA
will evaluate the revision. If the formal SIP revision is changed from
the draft SIP revision, EPA will evaluate those changes for
significance. If any such changes are found by EPA to be significant,
then the Agency intends to re-propose the action based upon the revised
submission.
While EPA may not be able to have a concurrent public comment
process with the Commonwealth, the DAQ-requested parallel processing
allows EPA to begin to take action on the Commonwealth's draft SIP
submission in advance of the formal SIP submission. As stated above,
the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP
submission has been: (1) Adopted by Kentucky; (2) submitted formally to
EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated for changes.
V. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's February 28, 2018, draft SIP
submission and to find that Kentucky is not required to make any
further reductions, beyond those required by the CSAPR Update, to
address its statutory obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If EPA finalizes approval of this
draft submission, Kentucky's obligations under 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) will
be fully addressed through the combination of the CSAPR Update FIP and
the demonstration showing that no further reductions are necessary. As
a result, EPA is also proposing to amend the regulatory text at 40 CFR
52.940(b)(2) to reflect that the CSAPR Update represents a full remedy
with respect to Kentucky's transport obligation for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA requests comment on this proposed action.
EPA's proposed approval is contingent on Kentucky's submission of a
final SIP revision that does not differ significantly from the February
28, 2018 draft. Should Kentucky not submit such a final SIP revision to
EPA or should EPA not be able to approve a final revision, EPA will
undertake further action to address any outstanding obligations that
Kentucky may have under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The Agency has made the preliminary determination that this proposed
action is consistent with the CAA.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 17131]]
Dated: April 9. 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-08137 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P