other reductions from other sources. In the absence of this or any such
similar analyses, the petition has not demonstrated, based on
information available at this time, that the sources named in the
petition should be required to make further emissions reductions under
the good neighbor provision.
    The petition also has not demonstrated how to weigh these relevant
cost and air quality factors to determine an appropriate level of
control for the named sources. Instead, the petition simply asserts
that upwind sources should be subject to a comparable level of control
as sources in downwind states, i.e., the $5,000/ton level of control
sources in New York are subjected to for purposes of RACT. While
information regarding costs of controls in the downwind area may be
useful when evaluating upwind emissions reduction potential, such
information is not determinative of the appropriate level of upwind
control. As the EPA explained at proposal, nothing in the text of the
good neighbor provision indicates that upwind states are required to
implement RACT, which is a requirement that applies to most areas
designated nonattainment, see CAA section 172(c)(1) (nonattainment
areas generally), 182(b)(2) (ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate), nor does the provision require uniformity of control
strategies imposed in both upwind and downwind states. Rather, the good
neighbor provision indicates that states are required to prohibit those
emissions which ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or
``interfere with maintenance'' of the NAAQS in a downwind state, terms
that the Supreme Court has found to be ambiguous. See EME Homer City,
572 U.S. at 489.\90\ The EPA has always considered cost under the good
neighbor provision as part of a multifactor analysis based on the facts
and circumstances of the air quality problem at the time of each
evaluation, but the EPA has never set upwind control obligations based
solely on the level of controls imposed for purposes of RACT in
downwind nonattainment areas, as the petition suggests the EPA do here.
The EPA believes that such a multifactor analysis that considers
relevant cost and air quality factors is important for any evaluation
of a CAA section 126(b) petition regarding interstate transport of
ozone (a regional pollutant with contribution from a variety of
sources), as the EPA reviews whether the particular sources identified
in the petition should be controlled considering the costs and
collective impact of emissions on air quality in the area, including
emissions from other anthropogenic sources. The petition fails to
conduct any comparable analysis. Review of the named sources in New
York's petition may provide a starting point for such an analysis but
does not complete the analysis or even provide the type of data that
would be necessary for the EPA to conduct such an analysis to determine
whether the named sources emit or would emit in violation of the good
neighbor provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ EME Homer City also held that the EPA is precluded from
requiring more emissions reductions than necessary to address
downwind nonattainment and maintenance issues. 572 U.S. at 521-22.
The petition also fails to demonstrate that the imposition of RACT-
level controls on all named upwind sources will not result in the
type of over-control forbidden by the Supreme Court under the good
neighbor provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition also suggests that upwind sources should be subject to
a comparable level of control as sources in downwind states, in part,
because it asserts that, while the CSAPR program provides the legal and
technical basis for states to eliminate their significant contributions
to excessive ozone pollution, the EPA has failed to implement a full,
federal-level remedy to completely address the issue of transported
ozone, instead issuing EGU NOX ozone season emissions
budgets as a partial remedy for interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The petition asserts that, according to the analyses in the
CSAPR Update, after application of the rule's NOX budgets,
the EPA's modeling still projected multiple remaining nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in the NYMA, including monitoring sites in
Fairfield and New Haven Counties in the Connecticut portion of the
area, which would continue to project nonattainment in 2017.
    While the EPA acknowledged in the CSAPR Update that the FIPs may
only be a partial remedy for interstate transport for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA subsequently promulgated the Determination Rule, in
which the EPA concluded that the existing CSAPR Update fully addresses
the interstate transport obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for certain states,
including eight of the States named in New York's petition (Illinois,
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia), because the downwind air quality problems projected in 2017
would be resolved in 2023. 83 FR 65878 (December 21, 2018). The EPA
also approved a SIP from Kentucky which similarly determined that the
CSAPR Update FIP would fully satisfy the State's good neighbor
obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 33730). Thus,
the EPA has now determined through this set of actions that the
emissions reductions required under the CSAPR Update fully address the
good neighbor requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for all
the States named in the petition. For the reasons explained in this
section, the petition has failed to demonstrate that it is necessary to
implement additional, source-specific, unit-level emissions limits at
any of the sources named in the petition to ensure reductions are being
achieved under the CSAPR Update.
    Several commenters contend that it is unreasonable to have expected
New York to address many of the step 3 considerations that the EPA
outlined in the proposal. One commenter claims that the EPA's position
that New York's petition needed to provide analyses describing the
downwind air quality impacts of controlling the named sources
``relative to other sources'' is an unreasonable requirement for a CAA
section 126(b) petition. The commenter asserts that the need for a
comparative demonstration is particularly unreasonable here because the
petition already encompasses all large upwind stationary sources
collectively linked to New York's downwind nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems. The commenter further states that New York has no
ability to obtain more specific cost figures for the sources named in
the petition. The commenter asserts that the EPA either has such
information or can obtain it when developing the remedy under CAA
section 126(c).
    Another commenter states that the EPA undertook comprehensive EGU
and non-EGU control analyses in 2016 as part of its CSAPR Update
efforts, which resulted in two detailed TSDs that considered
availability of controls, associated costs, and installation times. The
EPA further noted in the non-EGU TSD that ``the EPA continues to assess
the role of NOX emissions from non-

EGU sources to downwind nonattainment problems.'' The commenter asserts
that given its authority to gather data, its existing research on both
EGU and non-EGU NOX control technologies, and the 8 months
afforded it by the CAA to act on a petition, the EPA has had adequate
time to conduct the analysis and define emissions limits for petitioned
units that would effectuate the remedy requested by the petition.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertions. As discussed in
Section II.C of this notification, the EPA has repeatedly found that
ozone transport problems are the result of individually small impacts
from numerous sources in upwind states that can have collectively large
impacts on downwind ozone concentrations. Apportioning responsibility
for emissions reductions across many sources in many states is a key
outcome of applying the four-step interstate transport framework,
which, considering various cost and air quality factors under step 3,
identifies a rational basis for determining that emissions reductions
should be required under the good neighbor provision from certain
sources rather than others. This source comparison necessarily involves
identifying the current operating status of each named facility, the
magnitude of emissions from each emitting unit within each named
facility, the existing controls on each of these emissions units,
additional control options on each emissions unit, the cost of each
potential control option, the emissions reductions potential resulting
from the installation of controls, and potential air quality impacts of
emissions reductions. Without this information, the EPA cannot
determine whether the sources named in the New York petition have
available or cost-effective emissions reductions either as compared to
one another or as compared to other, unnamed sources in the same upwind
states or in other states. Moreover, the EPA cannot determine whether
it would be appropriate to regulate any of the hundreds of sources
named in New York's petition without such information.
    While the EPA initiated analyses of emissions reduction potential
available at EGUs and non-EGUs conducted in support of the CSAPR
Update, the analyses were limited in scope, as described in Section
II.C. Since finalizing that rule, the EPA has not gathered significant
additional information or completed additional analyses regarding the
availability of additional controls beyond that which is included in
the EGU and non-EGU TSDs identified by the commenter because the EPA
has not needed this information to support any current EPA-initiated
federal ozone rulemakings. The EPA maintains that the petitioner bears
the burden of establishing a technical basis for the specific finding
requested and has not done so here.
    On the contrary, commenters supporting the petition had the
opportunity to, but did not, provide such analyses during the public
comment period on the proposed action. Rather, multiple different
commenters supporting denial of the petition provided corrections or
supplemental information indicating that the operational status and/or
emissions information provided in the New York petition were incorrect,
further suggesting that granting the petition as to certain units would
be unjustified on the facts before the Agency. Generally, commenters
opposing the denial did not provide information regarding the
installation or cost of controls or the potential emissions reductions
available. In the absence of such analyses and information, the
petition has not demonstrated, based on information available at this
time, that the sources named in the petition should be required to make
further emissions reductions pursuant to CAA section 126(b). The
existence of two EPA technical support documents on controls for EGUs
and non-EGUs mentioned by commenters does not contradict this
conclusion.
    Several commenters contend that the petition adequately met the
step 3 requirements because New York demonstrated that there are
available, cost-effective emissions reductions from the named upwind
sources. Commenters assert that New York has done so by showing that
certain named upwind sources that have average emissions rates over
0.15 lb/mmBtu, the emissions rate that is consistent with New York's
RACT requirement, and that setting an enforceable NOX
emissions limit equivalent to New York's NOX RACT
requirements at a cost of $5,000/ton of NOX reduced could be
met in many cases by operating existing controls. Commenters further
assert that the EPA has failed to explain why it would not be cost
effective to implement NOX controls at the group of sources
identified in the petition. Commenters point to the legislative history
of CAA section 126(b) as demonstrating an important part of the impetus
to add CAA section 126(b) was to help equalize control costs between
upwind and downwind states,\91\ and state that New York is only seeking
to require upwind sources to comply with requirements it already
imposes on its own in-state sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Specifically, commenters quote the following, ``In the
absence of interstate abatement procedures, those plants in States
with more stringent control requirements are at a distinct economic
and competitive disadvantage. [CAA section 126(b)] is intended to
equalize the positions of the States with respect to interstate
pollution by making a source at least as responsible for polluting
another State as it would be for polluting its own State.'' S.Rep.
No. 95-127, at 42 (1977), reprinted in 3 1977 Legislative History of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, at 42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees that the petition's proposal that New York's RACT
standard be applied to the identified sources provides enough
information for the EPA to conclude, at step 3, that each of the
sources will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in the NYMA. While New York proposes a uniform level
of cost and control (at $5,000/ton and 0.15 lb/mmBtu), neither New York
nor the commenters provide an explanation for why that is an
appropriate level of control to use to define significant contribution
under the good neighbor provision and CAA section 126(b). As discussed
earlier, the fact that the sources have a collective impact over an air
quality threshold at step 2 does not address whether the sources have
cost-effective emissions reductions at step 3.
    For example, the petition provides no information demonstrating
that the 0.15 lb/mmBtu rate is achievable at all sources, whether at
$5,000 or at other costs. While the commenter suggests that some
sources might meet that limit through operation of existing controls,
neither the commenter nor the petition demonstrates that all of the
approximately 350 sources could meet that proposed rate at the proposed
$5,000/ton threshold. Thus, the EPA cannot conclude that the proposed
rate is cost-effective for the suite of sources. Moreover, the petition
does not identify which sources have existing controls that can be
operated to meet that rate, meaning the EPA could not even grant the
petition as to certain sources without identifying or generating
additional information. Furthermore, commenters assert that some of the
sources are already meeting the rate, suggesting that even under the
petition's own approach that these sources are not significantly
contributing to any air quality problems in New York. It is therefore
left to the EPA to determine not only which sources have the emissions
that constitute the alleged significant contribution, but also which

sources the petition even correctly names.
    Moreover, a conclusion that the emissions rate proposed by New York
is cost-effective at $5,000 per ton of NOX removed ignores
the critical question of what relevant ozone improvements would be
achieved at the downwind area at that cost threshold or considering any
other potential control strategies. Determinations about what
constitutes reasonably available control technology ``evaluat[e]
whether implementation of certain controls within a nonattainment area
will be effective at addressing a local air quality problem relative to
the cost of such controls.'' 83 FR at 50470. What controls are required
locally in nonattainment areas is a different question from whether
emissions from upwind states, which travel longer distances and have
different downwind impacts, ``significantly contribute'' to downwind
nonattainment under the good neighbor provision. As the D.C. Circuit
held in North Carolina, the good neighbor provision does not permit the
EPA to simply ``pick a cost for a region and deem `significant' any
emissions that sources can eliminate more cheaply.'' 531 F.3d at 918.
Rather, the EPA must ``achieve something measurable toward the goal of
prohibiting sources `within the State' from contributing significantly
to downwind nonattainment'' and ``explain how the objectives in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relate to its choice of . . . emissions caps.'' In
the context of a section 126(b) petition, this is the petitioner's
burden in the first instance.
    The EPA further disagrees that the cited legislative history
supports the petition's and commenters' conclusion that the upwind
states should impose controls commensurate with New York's RACT.
Although indicating that CAA section 126 was intended to increase the
equity between the States with respect to taking responsibility for
impacts on air quality problems, nowhere did Congress indicate that
upwind states were required to impose the same level of control as
downwind states in all cases. If Congress had intended this result, the
statute could have been written in this manner. Instead, Congress
referenced CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which also fails to include a
specific control level and instead uses the ambiguous terms
``significant contribution'' and ``interference with maintenance'' to
describe the amount of emissions upwind states are required to control,
and CAA section 126(b) simply incorporated that standard.
    Moreover, the concept of ``equity'' is particularly difficult to
define in the context of ozone transport, given that downwind ozone
concentrations are affected by individually small impacts from
emissions of hundreds and thousands of sources. First, as to the number
of sources potentially impacted, states with nonattainment areas are
generally required to implement RACT at major sources located only
within the boundaries of the nonattainment area or within the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR). However, the petition's and commenters'
argument suggests that the same controls should be imposed on all major
sources throughout upwind states so long as the state has a linkage at
or above the step 2 threshold \92\--a much higher burden than the
statute imposes on local emissions within the home state of a
nonattainment area.\93\ Second, there is no uniform threshold for
determining what rate and cost represent RACT. The process for
identifying RACT considers a variety of factors and can vary from
nonattainment area to nonattainment area, from state to state, and
indeed from source to source. Thus, it is not necessarily ``equitable''
to rely on a single state's conclusion as to what constitutes RACT for
its mix of sources in order to define ``significant contribution'' for
a suite of different sources in numerous distant upwind states. Rather,
as the Supreme Court concluded, the EPA's use of cost to evaluate
different types of control strategies and select a level of control for
a region is itself ``equitable,'' and achieves the intention reflected
in the legislative history, because it ``subjects to stricter
regulation those States that have done relatively less in the past to
control their pollution.'' EME Homer City, 572 U.S. at 519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Notably, the factors used to identify areas contributing to
a measured violation in the designation process are more complex
than the simple air quality threshold used in the EPA's four-step
interstate transport framework. In-state sources are not necessarily
subject to RACT based solely on a similarly low air quality impact.
    \93\ The EPA recognizes that states like New York are required,
as members of OTR, to impose RACT at major sources statewide, but
commenters have not argued that the good neighbor provision requires
incorporation of OTR level controls in any state impacting a
downwind air quality problem; nor could they. The statute provides a
separate provision at CAA section 176A for determining whether it is
appropriate to add additional states to the OTR and thus subject
them to the additional requirements applicable to such states. The
EPA already considered and rejected a petition submitted under this
provision to expand the OTR and subject more states to these
requirements, which the D.C. Circuit affirmed. New York v. EPA, 921
F.3d 257 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Congress's decision to include only
certain states in the OTR was an acknowledgement that there might be
inequities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asserts that data indicate that certain facilities
named in New York's CAA section 126(b) petition could be controlled.
Specifically, the commenter notes that the Brunner Island Power Plant
completed installation of a natural gas line in 2017, but that 2018
emissions data reveal the facility fired coal on approximately 32 days
in the ozone season, of which nine were days when the ozone standard
was exceeded in New York State. The commenter further notes that the
EPA found in denying Maryland and Delaware's CAA section 126(b)
petitions that the CSAPR Update was controlling emissions from the EGUs
named in the petition and from EGUs collectively in the named upwind
states that impact ozone concentrations in Maryland and Delaware. But
2018 ozone season emissions data from those sources (also named in New
York's petition) reveal that NOX emissions continue to
exceed the levels that would have resulted if existing controls were
operated as the EPA assumed in the modeling for the Determination Rule
(at a 0.10 lb/mmBtu rate). The commenter provides data for the units
named in the Maryland and Delaware petitions intended to demonstrate
that they could have reduced NOX emissions over the course
of the ozone season using the 0.15 lb/mmBtu rate requested in New
York's petition, while also noting that several units already meet or
approach that limit.
    The commenter asserts that additional facilities in New York's
petition have similarly been operating with 2018 ozone season
NOX emissions rates higher than the requested 0.15 lb/mmBtu
rate, even though ``state-of-the-art'' emissions controls are widely
available and assumed by the EPA to be installed in its 2023 modeling.
The comment provides a table with data for six individual sources,
intended to provide a representative sample of the unoptimized
facilities across the region, and then cites to the CSAPR Update where
the EPA said that ``state-of-the-art combustion controls such as low-
NOX burners and over-fire air can be installed quickly'' and
at an estimated cost of installation of only $500 to $1,200 per ton of
NOX removed. The commenter asserts that an analysis of
emissions data reveals that if facilities were to operate at a 0.15 lb/
mmBtu NOX rate, they would have each reduced their
NOX emissions by over 100 tons, considering only the days
during the 2018 ozone season in which New York monitors exceeded the
NAAQS.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that there is
sufficient information to grant the petition as to the sources
identified in New York's petition. As an initial matter, simply
providing data regarding

how individual units operated in 2018, including those units named in
the prior Delaware and Maryland CAA section 126(b) petitions, does not
demonstrate either that the units are able to achieve the 0.15 lb/mmBtu
rate proposed by the New York petition or, to the extent this is
technically achievable, that the measures necessary for the sources to
operate at that rate would be cost-effective considering the types of
factors the EPA typically evaluates in step 3 of the four-step
interstate transport framework. In fact, the commenter concedes that
certain units for which it provides data already meet the proposed
limit, which further undermines any conclusion that these units should
be further controlled under CAA section 126(b).
    The EPA further notes, as it did in its denial of the Delaware and
Maryland petitions, that the EPA has already taken regulatory action to
control emissions from the sources noted in the comment.\94\ As
described in the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74540-41), control strategies
involving turning on and fully operating existing SCR control equipment
and installing state-of-the-art combustion controls were accounted for
in setting state budgets to address the good neighbor requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for states in the eastern U.S.\95\ Recent measured
emissions data suggest that those emissions reductions were either
successfully achieved at the particular units, or commensurate
reductions were achieved from other units within the state, as
demonstrated by all states meeting the state budgets (accounting for
the year-to-year variability associated with the assurance levels) and
relatively low emissions rates seen at large numbers of units across
the region (see Excel documents titled,
``2017_csapr_budgets_emissions_and_assurance_levels_11-1-18_3.xlsx'',
``2018_csapr_assurance_provision_0.xlsx'', and ``2017 NOX
Rates for 274 coal units'' in the docket for this action for additional
details).\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See 83 FR 50464-70.
    \95\ See the CSAPR Update technical support document, EGU
NOX Mitigation Strategies Final Rule TSD for additional
details.
    \96\ 2017 CSAPR Budgets Emissions and Assurance Levels
Spreadsheet and 2017 CSAPR Budgets Emissions and Assurance Levels
Spreadsheet available in the docket and at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-assurance-provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that the petitioner and commenters have provided some
unit-level emissions data for a few units (see comment available at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0170-0084, Tables 1 and 2) showing some daily emissions
rates exceeding the commenter's proposed 0.15 lb/mmBtu rate. However,
the fact that a source may have higher emissions on a particular day is
not determinative of whether a unit is not fully operating its control
equipment and can achieve a lower rate, as there are many reasons why
lower rates may not always be achievable on every day (e.g., at low
hourly utilization rates there are engineering limitations for flow and
temperature for an SCR to operate, see Short-Term Emissions Limits
Document in the docket for this action for additional details).
Similarly, based on unit configuration, technical engineering design
efficiency, and the exact nature of the fuel utilized, not all
combustion control or post-combustion control equipment is technically
capable of achieving a best emissions rate, or fleet-average best rate,
under all operating conditions.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See National Electric Energy Data System excel document in
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted by the commenter, the EPA has explained that certain
combustion controls (e.g., low-NOX burners (LNB) and over-
fire air) can be installed quickly and at costs of $500 to $1,200 tons
on average, neither the petition nor the commenter has demonstrated
that there are emissions reductions achievable from these strategies at
all the units named in the petition. Rather, as shown in the CSAPR
Update Rule EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD, there is
limited EGU reduction potential in the CSAPR Update region (including
all states named in the petition) as most sources have already
installed state of the art combustion controls.\98\ Moreover, these
controls may, or may not, be able to achieve the rate identified by the
commenter of 0.15 lb/mmBtu, and even for those that can the unit-
specific cost may not match the fleetwide average cost discussed
earlier. The commenter's calculations of alleged emissions reduction
potential from meeting the proposed rate ignore unit-specific technical
considerations and corresponding cost by assuming that all facilities
could have lowered emissions to a 0.15 lb/mmBtu NOX
emissions rate through combustion control upgrade or post-combustion
control optimization. The commenter does not present complete
engineering and cost analysis that speaks to whether these units can,
and cost-effectively, operate at the proposed level. Moreover, they do
not explain how any potential reductions identified at these sources
are more cost-effective than mitigation efforts at other upwind
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final Rule
Technical Support Document, August 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also misconstrue the EPA's use of 0.10 lb/mmBtu as a
rate ceiling rather than a fleet-average when discussing the
assumptions underlying the modeling used in the Determination Rule. The
EPA specifically noted that 0.10 lb/mmBtu was representative of a
fleet-average for units that were not already operating their controls
prior to the implementation of the CSAPR Update. It did not reflect a
unit-level rate ceiling or cut-off for SCR operation at all units. In
the CSAPR Update, the EPA determined that, based on an aggregation of
unit-level emissions rates, an average fleet-wide emissions rate of
0.10 lb/mmBtu would represent the optimized operation of SCR controls
that were not already being operated and optimized, and set statewide
emissions budgets based on this assumption. 81 FR 74543. In concluding
that this rate would be appropriate for calculating emissions reduction
potential from implementation of this control strategy, the EPA
recognized that some units would have optimized rates above that level
and some below that level. 81 FR 74543. Thus, the fact that some units
are operating above 0.10 lb/mmBtu is not indicative that the sources
have additional cost-effective emissions reductions available.
    Thus, although the petition and the commenter have identified
certain sources operating at rates higher than that proposed by New
York in its petition, this is not sufficient information to demonstrate
that the sources can or should be further controlled, and thus does not
support a finding that such sources significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of either the 2008 or 2015
ozone NAAQS in New York.
Conclusion
    For the reasons described in this section, the EPA is finalizing a
determination that material elements in New York's assessment of step 3
are insufficient, such that the EPA cannot conclude that any source or
group of sources in any of the named states will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in Chautauqua
County or the NYMA relative to the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. Thus, the
EPA is finalizing its denial of the petition as to all named sources in
all the named upwind states because New York has not met its burden to
demonstrate that the sources emit or would emit in violation of the
good neighbor provision with respect to either the 2008 or 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Although the EPA already has identified a sufficient basis to
deny the petition as to Chautauqua County (for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS) and NYMA (for the 2008 ozone

NAAQS) at step 1 of the four-step interstate transport framework, the
EPA is also relying on our assessment of step 3 as an additional and
independent basis for denial as to the petition's claims for these
areas.
4. Group of Stationary Sources
    The EPA does not need, in this final action, to make any finding or
determination for New York's CAA section 126(b) petition with respect
to the scope of ``group of stationary sources.'' In the proposal, the
EPA solicited comment on whether to deny New York's petition based on
the petition's insufficient justification that such a large,
undifferentiated number of sources located in numerous upwind states
constituted a ``group of stationary sources'' within the context of CAA
section 126(b). The proposal offered that a ``group of stationary
sources'' could mean stationary sources within a geographic region,
sources identified by a specific North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) Code, sources emitting over a defined threshold and/or
any combination of these or other defining characteristics. The EPA
received comments both supporting and opposing a petition denial based
on whether the petition adequately demonstrated that the sources
identified in the petition constitute a ``group of stationary
sources.'' Based on the other bases for denial, the EPA does not need
to reach the question of whether the petitioners' failed to
sufficiently justify its interpretation of a ``group of stationary
sources'' but notes that the absence of supporting information for such
a determination makes the Agency unlikely to side with petitioners on
the information provided.

IV. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA.
This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if: (i)
The Agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator;'' or (ii)
such action is locally or regionally applicable, but ``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.''
    To the extent a court finds this action to be locally or regionally
applicable, the EPA has found that this action is based on a
determination of ``nationwide scope and effect'' within the meaning of
CAA section 307(b)(1). This action addresses emissions impacts from
sources located in nine states, located in multiple EPA Regions and
federal judicial circuits. This final action is also based on a common
core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport of
pollutants between the different states.
    For these reasons, to the extent a court finds this action to be
locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator has determined that
this final action is based on a determination of nationwide scope and
effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1).Thus, pursuant to CAA
section 307(b), any petitions for review of this final action must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days from the date such final action is published in the
Federal Register.
    In addition, pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(N) and 307(d)(1)(V) of
the CAA, the Administrator has determined that this action is subject
to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(N)
provides that section 307(d) applies to, among other things, ``action
of the Administrator under CAA section 126 of this title (relating to
interstate pollution abatement).'' 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(N). Under CAA
section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of CAA section 307(d) also apply
to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.'' 42 U.S.C.
7407(d)(1)(V). The Agency has complied with procedural requirements of
CAA section 307(d) through this rulemaking effort.

V. Statutory Authority

    42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426, 7601.

    Dated: September 20, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-21207 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P