[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38957-38963]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14103]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; FRL-9947-71-Region 5]

Indiana; Ohio; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Indiana
and Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality
management program is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure
requirements concerning interstate transport provisions, for which Ohio
and Indiana made SIP submissions that, among other things, certified
that their existing SIPs were sufficient to meet the interstate
transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional
availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submissions?
III. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

    This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements
in two infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the applicable
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: A
December 12, 2011, submission from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM), clarified in a May 24, 2012, letter;
and a December 27, 2012, submission from the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1),
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. EPA
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
    This rulemaking takes action on three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements of these submissions. In particular, 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
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (``prong
one''), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (``prong two''),
by any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one

state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality (``prong three'') and to protect
visibility (``prong four'') in another state. This rulemaking addresses
prongs one, two, and four of this CAA section. The majority of the
other infrastructure elements were approved in rulemakings on April 29,
2015 (80 FR 23713) for Indiana; and October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019) for
Ohio.

II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submissions?

    The proposed rulemaking associated with today's final action was
published on March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14025).
    In that action, EPA proposed to disapprove the portions of Ohio's
December 27, 2012 SIP submission addressing prongs one, two, and four
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In proposing to disapprove the SIP
submission as to prongs one and two, EPA noted several deficiencies in
Ohio's submission: (1) Ohio's SIP submission lacks any technical
analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in each state
impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS; (2) Ohio's SIP does not demonstrate how certain state programs
and rules provide sufficient controls on emissions to address
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (3) Ohio's submission
relied on the state's implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), which was not designed to address interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone standard and which is no longer being
implemented; and (4) EPA recently released technical data which
contradicts the state's conclusion that its SIP contained adequate
provisions to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    In proposing to disapprove the Ohio SIP submission as to prong
four, EPA explained that there are two ways in which a state may
satisfy its visibility transport obligations: (1) A fully approved
regional haze SIP, or (2) a demonstration that emissions within its
jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect
visibility. Ohio's SIP submission relied on the State's regional haze
SIP to satisfy its visibility transport requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(i)(II). However, Ohio does not have a fully approved regional
haze SIP in place because its obligations are satisfied in part by
EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) based regional haze
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Ohio also did not provide an
alternate demonstration that its emissions would not interfere with
plans to protect visibility in other states.
    EPA also proposed to disapprove the portions of Indiana's December
12, 2011 SIP submission addressing prongs one, two, and four of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In proposing to disapprove the SIP submission
as to prongs one and two, EPA noted several deficiencies in Ohio's
submission: (1) Indiana's SIP submission lacks any technical analysis
evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in each state impact air
quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (2)
Indiana's SIP submission relied on the state's participation on the
CSAPR trading program, which was not designed to address interstate
transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard; (3) the state failed
to cite any other rules currently being implemented by the state that
are part of Indiana's approved SIP or that are being submitted as part
of the state's SIP submission to address interstate transport for the
2008 ozone NAAQS; and (4) EPA recently released technical data which
contradicts the state's conclusion that its SIP contained adequate
provisions to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    In proposing to disapprove the Indiana SIP submission as to prong
four, EPA noted that Indiana's SIP submission relies on its regional
haze SIP to satisfy the state's visibility transport obligations.
However, Indiana does not have a fully approved regional haze SIP in
place because its obligations are satisfied in part by EPA's CSAPR-
based regional haze FIP. Indiana also did not provide an alternate
demonstration that its emissions would not interfere with plans to
protect visibility in other states.

III. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    EPA received four comments during the comment period, which ended
on April 15, 2016. A synopsis of the comments contained in these
letters and EPA's responses, are provided below.

A. Comments on the Ohio Disapproval for Prongs One and Two

    Comment 1: Ohio EPA commented that the proposed disapproval focuses
on the state's duty to make a SIP submission addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D), but contends that EPA has historically taken the lead in
addressing transported emissions, citing several prior EPA rulemakings
including the Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) SIP Call, CAIR, and
CSAPR. The state noted that meeting the bar that EPA has set with these
rulemakings would be ``extremely resource intensive and require
unprecedented multi-state collaboration,'' and is therefore best suited
for EPA. Ohio EPA alleged that EPA's actions to develop these
regulations are too late for the states to incorporate into their SIPs.
    The state further commented that EPA has provided insufficient
guidance to states addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)
in their SIPs, and guidance that is provided is often ill-timed. Ohio
EPA gave the example of guidance for the 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS that was released on September 25, 2009, four
days after SIPs addressing this standard were due, which stated that
the states could not rely on the CAIR. The state also noted that for
the 2008 ozone standard, SIP submissions were due on March 12, 2011,
and EPA guidance issued two years later on September 13, 2013 did not
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The state also commented that under
cooperative federalism, EPA should not only set standards, but provided
the necessary information and technical assistance for the state to
fulfil their CAA obligations. Ohio EPA commented that the proposal did
not acknowledge the continued efforts to meet EPA requirements on a
timely basis and alleged that they were being punished with a
disapproval because of a consent decree in which they were not a party.
The state contends that EPA engages in secretive ``sue and settle''
arrangements where EPA agrees to issue disapprovals that commit the
states to actions or timeframes that are unreasonable. The state also
contends that EPA must disapprove Ohio's SIP submission in order to
impose a FIP. The state proposed that a better course of action under
cooperative federalism would have been for EPA to have provided the
necessary information and allowed the state the necessary time to
submit an approvable SIP.
    Response 1: While EPA issued several previous Federal rulemakings
addressing interstate transport obligations in eastern states with
respect to ozone and fine particulate matter, the Supreme Court
confirmed that the states have the first obligation to prepare and
submit state plans that prohibit the appropriate levels of emissions
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. In EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., the Supreme Court clearly held that ``nothing in the
statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to
States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor
obligations.'' 134 S. Ct. 1584,

1601 (2014).\1\ While EPA has taken a different approach in some prior
rulemakings by providing states with an opportunity to submit a SIP
after EPA quantified the states' budgets (e.g., the NOX SIP
Call and CAIR), the statute does not require such an approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Nothing in the Act differentiates the Good Neighbor
Provision from the several other matters a State must address in its
SIP. Rather, the statute speaks without reservation: Once a NAAQS
has been issued, a State `shall' propose a SIP within three years,
Sec.  7410(a)(1), and that SIP `shall' include, among other
components, provisions adequate to satisfy the Good Neighbor
Provision, Sec.  7410(a)(2).'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. at 1600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA did not provide specific guidance regarding how states
could satisfy their statutory obligation with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA did
provide information to assist states with developing or supplementing
their SIP submissions. On January 22, 2015, EPA issued a memorandum
providing preliminary modeling information regarding potential downwind
air quality problems and levels of upwind state contributions. See
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor'
Provision for the 2008 Ozone [NAAQS] under [CAA] Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (Jan. 22, 2015). As noted at proposal, EPA also
provided updated modeling and contribution information in its August 4,
2015 Notice of Data Availability. 80 FR 46271. While Ohio's December
27, 2012 SIP was submitted prior to this information being provided,
the state did not attempt to revise or supplement its SIP submission to
address this information.
    Moreover, EPA does not agree that the states needed formal guidance
to understand that it was inappropriate to rely on CAIR for purposes of
satisfying the state's interstate transport obligations with respect to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted earlier, CAIR was designed to address
interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, and in any event the rule is no longer
being implemented by the states or EPA. More importantly, in North
Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that CAIR was ``fundamentally
flawed,'' 531 F.3d 896, 929 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in part because CAIR did
not satisfy the statutory requirement to ``achieve[] something
measurable towards the goal of prohibiting sources `within the State'
from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in
`any other State.' '' Id. at 908. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit held in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, ``when our decision in North
Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the
requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the
initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was
done.'' 795 F.3d 118, 133 (2015). For these reasons, EPA cannot now
approve an interstate transport SIP addressing any NAAQS based on the
state's participation in CAIR.
    Finally, EPA disagrees that either the litigation regarding EPA's
deadline to act on Ohio's SIP submission or EPA's proposed action to
update CSAPR to address the 2008 ozone standard (CSAPR Update) have
dictated the substance of EPA's action on Ohio's SIP with respect to
prongs one and two. CAA section 110(k)(2) requires EPA to act on a
state's SIP submission within one year after the submission is
determined to be complete. Therefore, EPA's statutory obligation to act
on Ohio's December 27, 2012 SIP submission was overdue. While EPA did
enter into a consent decree with litigants in Sierra Club v. McCarthy,
No. 4:14-cv-5091-YGR (N.D. Cal.), which raised claims regarding EPA's
alleged failure to fulfill its mandatory duty to take action on Ohio's
SIP under CAA section 110(k)(2), that agreement governs only the
timetable on which EPA must act on the state's SIP submissions under
CAA section 110(k)(2) and not the substance of EPA's action. As
described earlier, EPA has evaluated Ohio's SIP submission on its
merits and found that it is deficient for purposes of addressing the
state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Comment 2: A commenter cited comments that were submitted on the
docket for the CSAPR Update rulemaking because the modeling used to
support that rule is also being used in the disapproval Ohio's
interstate transport SIP. The commenter stated that ``the comments
detail legal problems and technical flaws with the modeling'' and
asserted that EPA should not have acted on Ohio's SIP submission until
the CSAPR Update was finalized and EPA had responded to the comments.
The commenter disagreed with the need for EPA to take action on the
submission at this time and stated that EPA should have issued a SIP
call or asked the state for a supplemental submission instead of
disapproving the December 27, 2012 SIP submission which was ``in
accordance with what was required at the time''. The commenter noted
that EPA's analysis was completed three years after the state's
submission.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that EPA
is disapproving Ohio's SIP submission addressing prongs one and two
based primarily on the modeling conducted to support the proposed CSAPR
Update rulemaking. As noted earlier, states bear the primary
responsibility to demonstrate that their plans contain adequate
provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions,
specifically to demonstrate that the plan properly prohibits emissions
that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. As described in the
proposal and earlier in this notice, EPA has identified several ways in
which Ohio's SIP submission fails to fulfill this obligation. In
particular, EPA is disapproving Ohio's submission for its reliance on
CAIR, which is legally invalid, and the lack of state rules identified
in its submission that are sufficient to prohibit emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the standard in other states.
    While EPA cited the modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update as
additional evidence that Ohio may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of
contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction
obligation. Rather, the evaluation of whether emissions from Ohio
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind, and if so what reductions are
necessary to address that contribution, is being conducted in the
context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA will consider
timely-submitted comments regarding EPA's air quality modeling and
various associated legal and policy decisions in finalizing that
rulemaking. Moreover, it is inappropriate for the commenter to merely
cite to or attach comments prepared for another rulemaking without
identifying which portions of those comments are pertinent to this
action. Without further explanation, EPA has no obligation to address
comments prepared for the purpose of the CSAPR Update in the context of
this rulemaking.
    EPA notes that the technical data discussed at proposal with
respect to Ohio's potential contribution to downwind air quality
problems is consistent with modeling previously conducted for trading
programs

addressing interstate ozone transport such as CAIR (70 FR 25162), CSAPR
(76 FR 48208), and the NOx SIP Call (63 FR 57356) showing that Ohio is
frequently linked to downwind receptors. The modeling conducted to
support the proposed CSAPR Update is the most recent technical
information available to the Agency which still shows such linkages.
Even absent this modeling data, Ohio's SIP submission is inadequate to
address prongs one and two of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 3: Ohio EPA also attached comments that were submitted for
the proposal to update CSAPR to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS because,
the state explained, the modeling is also being used to disapprove
Ohio's SIP as to prongs one and two. The state commented that the
attached comments point out ``significant errors and concerns in U.S.
EPA's analyses regarding the [Notice of Data Availability] and
transport updates'' and that ``it is ill-timed and erroneous for U.S.
EPA to use these analyses as evidence that Ohio has not addressed its
transport obligations.''
    Response 3: While EPA cited the modeling conducted for the CSAPR
Update as additional evidence that Ohio may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of
contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction
obligation. Rather, the evaluation of whether emissions from Ohio
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind, and if so what reductions are
necessary to address that contribution, is being conducted in the
context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA will consider
timely-submitted comments regarding EPA's air quality modeling and
various associated legal and policy decisions in finalizing that
rulemaking. Moreover, it is inappropriate for the commenter to merely
cite to or attach comments prepared for another rulemaking without
identifying which portions of those comments are pertinent to this
action. Without further explanation, EPA has no obligation to address
comments prepared for the purpose of the CSAPR Update in the context of
this rulemaking.

B. Comments on the Indiana Disapproval for Prongs One and Two

    Comment 4: The commenter gave a summary of the regulatory history
of CSAPR and the overlapping timeline of the IDEM submission. The
commenter alleged that ``EPA was uncertain about the scope of the air
transport law, and therefore cannot be certain about its proposed
disapproval of the Indiana infrastructure SIP.''
    Response 4: In evaluating Indiana's SIP submission with respect to
prongs one and two of the interstate transport provisions of the
statute, EPA has identified several clear deficiencies in the state's
analysis. In particular, EPA noted that the state relied on
participation in CSAPR, which does not address interstate transport
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and failed to otherwise provide
any technical analysis to support its conclusion that the state had
satisfied its statutory obligation. The commenter has identified no
legal uncertainty underlying these bases for EPA's disapproval of
Indiana's SIP.
    Comment 5: The commenter cites to a comment from Connecticut on an
older rulemaking in which Connecticut requests further reductions of
upwind emissions to address nonattainment concerns in Connecticut. The
commenter gave an overview of the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) plan developed by Connecticut looking at feasible
local controls to address air quality in the nonattainment area
including Connecticut. The commenter concluded that because there are
further local controls available to address the nonattainment area, and
any attempt to impose reduction obligations on upwind states such as
Indiana without addressing these controls first would result in over-
control by the upwind states.
    Response 5: This action is not determining what, if any, emission
reductions sources in Indiana may need to achieve in order to address
the state's interstate transport obligation with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Instead, EPA is evaluating the state's interstate
transport SIP to determine whether the current submission satisfies the
statutory obligations at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As noted
earlier, Indiana's SIP contains several deficiencies that justify EPA's
decision to finalize disapproval as to prongs one and two transport, as
Indiana has failed to provide an adequate technical analysis
demonstrating that the state's current SIP contains sufficient
provisions to properly address interstate transport with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, besides Connecticut, EPA's most recent
technical analysis shows that emissions from Indiana contribute to
projected air quality problems in Wisconsin, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
    Comment 6: A commenter alleged that ``EPA propose[d] disapproval,
and its disagreement with IDEM's submission, rests in great part on the
modeling and technical data that was used to support the CSAPR Update''
and that a contrary view suggests ``that there is no basis to conclude
that Indiana would be expected to significantly contribute to the
nonattainment of or interfere with the maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in 2017.''
    The following comments pertain to modeling conducted to support the
proposed CSAPR Update and EPA's application of the modeling data in the
proposed rule. The commenter first noted that a study prepared by
Alpine Geophysics looked at ozone concentrations during a more recent
time period. The comment alleged that the concentrations from this
study were more appropriate because they reflected recent controls,
economic factors, recent regulatory programs, and more consistent
precipitation and temperature ranges. The commenter stated that using
this data set resulted in all projected air quality problems (both
nonattainment and maintenance receptors) being resolved in 2017 with
the exception of those in Fairfield, Connecticut. The commenter notes
that the proposed rulemaking does not find Indiana to be a significant
contributor to the Fairfield, Connecticut monitor.
    The commenter also cited what they believe are legal and policy
issues with the proposed CSAPR Update. The commenter alleged that EPA's
reliance on modeled maximum design value for determining whether a
state interferes with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind is inconsistent
with the Supreme Court's 2014 decision, the D.C. Circuit's 2015
decision in the EME Homer City litigation, the CAA. The commenter
contends that this interpretation of that statutory obligation would
result in unnecessary over-control. The commenter also alleged that
EPA's approach to addressing maintenance concerns is applied
differently in transport than it is in the context of redesignations.
    The commenter contends, based on the Alpine Geophysics report, that
EPA inappropriately used grids in its modeling platform that include
overwater receptors as well as land receptors, and further
inappropriately selected to represent the monitor the highest
concentration in the grid from an over the water location.
    The commenter further alleged that EPA using the latest version of
the

Integrated Planning Model would show great emissions reductions already
in place therefore lowering projected concentrations in downwind
states. The commenter also commented that that model did not include
controls such as a Pennsylvania RACT rule and mobile source controls in
the New England area that are needed to reduce concentrations at the
Connecticut monitor. The commenter contended that EPA did not properly
account for international emissions, and doing so would lead to the
conclusion that Indiana is not contributing to the Connecticut monitor.
The commenter concluded that using the alternate analysis by Alpine
Geophysical eliminates attainment and maintenance issues at all the
monitors except Connecticut and for the reasons summarized above,
Indiana does not significantly contribute to that monitor.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that EPA
is disapproving Indiana's SIP submission addressing prongs one and two
based primarily on the modeling conducted to support the proposed CSAPR
Update rulemaking. As noted earlier, states bear the primary
responsibility to demonstrate that their plans contain adequate
provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions,
specifically to demonstrate that the plan properly prohibits emissions
that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. As described in the
proposal and earlier in this notice, EPA has identified several ways in
which Indiana's SIP submission fails to fulfill this obligation. In
particular, EPA is disapproving Indiana's submission for its reliance
on CSAPR, which does not currently address the 2008 ozone standard, and
the submission's lack of identified state rules that are sufficient to
prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the standard in other states.
    While EPA cited the modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update as
additional evidence that Indiana may significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of
contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction
obligation. Rather, the evaluation of whether emissions from Indiana
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind, and if so what reductions are
necessary to address that contribution, is being conducted in the
context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA will consider
comments timely submitted to the Agency regarding EPA's air quality
modeling and various associated legal and policy decisions in
finalizing that rulemaking. While EPA appreciates the information
provided by the commenter regarding EPA's identification of downwind
air quality problems and Indiana's potential contribution to those
areas, these data do not undermine EPA's primary bases for disapproving
Indiana's SIP with respect to prongs one and two of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    EPA notes that the technical data discussed at proposal with
respect to Indiana's potential contribution to downwind air quality
problems is consistent with modeling previously conducted for trading
programs addressing interstate ozone transport such as CAIR (70 FR
25162), CSAPR (76 FR 48208), and the NOX SIP Call (63 FR
57356) showing that Indiana is frequently linked to downwind receptors.
The modeling conducted to support the proposed CSAPR Update is the most
recent technical information available to the Agency which still shows
such linkages. Even absent these modeling data, Indiana's SIP
submission is inadequate to address prongs one and two of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

C. Comments on Both the Indiana and Ohio Disapprovals for Prongs One
and Two

    Comment 7: The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (DEEP) is supportive of the proposed disapprovals of Indiana
and Ohio's SIP submissions addressing the prongs one and two transport
obligations. DEEP encouraged EPA to finalize the disapproval quickly
and propose and finalize a full transport remedy rather than waiting to
couple the action with the 2015 ozone NAAQS. DEEP also encourages EPA
to ``describe the implications of the disapproval with respect to each
state's good neighbor SIP obligations and the proposed partial remedy
provided by the [CSAPR] Update,'' and DEEP supports action by Indiana
and Ohio towards resolving outstanding SIP obligations.
    Response 7: EPA is supportive of any actions taken by the states to
resolve transport obligations. EPA will address further obligations for
Ohio and Indiana in the final CSAPR Update rule.

D. Comments on Both the Indiana and Ohio Disapprovals for Prong Four

    Comment 8: Both commenters on Indiana's submission and Ohio's
submission stated that the visibility portion should be approved,
because reliance on CAIR as better than Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for electric generating units (EGUs) was consistent
with CAA requirements at the time of both submissions. One commenter
also stated that since CAIR is better than BART has been replaced with
CSAPR is better than BART in the form a FIP, the requirements have been
fully addressed, and this transport prong should be fully approved. The
other commenter asserts that if EPA decides to finalize the
disapproval, EPA should clarify that no further action is needed
because of the FIP in place showing that for Ohio EGUs, CSAPR meets the
BART requirements for regional haze. Ohio EPA also disagreed with EPA's
proposed disapproval of prong four, because there is a FIP in place
that satisfies Ohio's obligations.
    Response 8: Indiana and Ohio cannot rely on CAIR to satisfy their
regional haze obligations, and by extension their prong four
obligations, because neither the states nor EPA are currently
implementing this program. Neither state has submitted an approvable
regional haze SIP to replace its current reliance on CAIR; thus, both
States have regional haze FIPs in place. However, as stated above,
states cannot rely on FIPs to satisfy their prong four obligations.
This is consistent with our approach for transport provisions and
federally implemented PSD programs. EPA is not promulgating FIPs to
address the states' prong four deficiencies in this action.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is disapproving a portion of Indiana's December 12, 2011
submission and Ohio's December 27, 2012 submission seeking to address
the required infrastructure element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, specifically prongs one, two, and four. This
disapproval triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the effective date of
this disapproval, if EPA has not approved a SIP revision or revisions
addressing the deficiencies identified in this action. This action is
not tied to attainment planning requirements and therefore does not
start any sanction clocks.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on the small entities subject to the rule. This action merely proposes
to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children
because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations.

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 15, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: June 3, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS''. The amended text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Title                   Indiana date          EPA approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure            12/12/2011  6/15/2016, [insert         This action addresses the
 Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.                  Federal Register           following CAA elements:
                                                         citation].                 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D),
                                                                                (E), (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.1870 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS''. The amended text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                         EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
                                   geographical or
             Title                 non-attainment      State date       EPA approval             Comments
                                        area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide.........      12/27/2012  6/15/2016, [insert  Addresses the following
 infrastructure requirements                                          Federal Register    CAA elements:
 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.                                            citation].          110(a)(2) (A) to (H)
                                                                                and (J) to (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-14103 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                 DOCKET INDEX
                         Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Plumas County; Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
                      (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0728)

Note to Readers: This index contains links to many of the documents included in the docket for this action. If the link fails to work, please contact: John Ungvarsky at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
A.  Rulemaking Documents
   A-1.	83 FR 64774 (December 18, 2018), Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; Plumas County; Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Proposed rule.
B.  State Implementation Plan Submittal and Supporting Documents
    Letter dated February 28, 2017, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
 California Air Resources Board; Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Portola PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, dated January 13, 2017.
 California Air Resources Board; Notice from<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to CARB arbcombo listserv recipients announcing February 16, 2017 public meeting to consider approval of Portola PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, dated January 13, 2017.
 California Air Resource Board, Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan, Resolution 17-2, dated February 16, 2017.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix A, Positive Matrix Factorization Report.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix B, Emission Inventory Methodology.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix D, Portola Area Residential Heating Survey.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix E, Incentive Measure and Enforceable Commitment.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix M, City of Portola Wood Stove and Fireplace Ordinance, Ordinance Number 344.
 California Air Resources Board; Appendix P, Assessment of Significance for Transportation Conformity.
 Staff Report, ARB Review of the Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan, Release Date: February 3, 2017, Air Resource Board.
 Completeness Checklist. Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V  -  Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions (for Portola PM2.5 Attainment Plan SIP submittal)
             Letter dated February 14, 2017, Gretchen Bennitt, Executive Director, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board with enclosures.
 Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan, January 2017, NSAQMD.
 NSAQMD Resolution 2017-1, dated January 23, 2017.
 NSAQMD website posting of public notice announcing January 23 public hearing in Portola, CA for proposed adoption of Plumas County (Portola) PM2.5 Attainment Plan.
 Proof of publication of public notice in Feather River Bulletin, Indian Valley Record, and Portola Reporter for January 23, 2017 public hearing in Portola, CA; Feather Publishing Company, dated December 14, 2016.
 Proof of publication of public notice for January 23, 2017 public hearing in Portola, CA; Plumas County News, dated December 14, 2016.
 Public hearing comment from Mark Mehevic, January 23, 2017.

    Letter dated December 20, 2017, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures.
 California Air Resources Board; Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Supplemental Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Portola PM2.5 State Implementation Plan, dated September 22, 2017.
 California Air Resource Board, Supplemental Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan and attachment, Resolution 17-28, dated October 26, 2017.
 California Air Resource Board, Staff Report, Supplemental Transportation Conformity Emissions Budgets for the Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan, Release Date: September 22, 2017.
 California Air Resources Board; Completeness Checklist for Submission of Updated Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Portola PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.

C.  EPA Policy, Guidance, and Rulemaking Documents
    53 FR 5860 (February 26, 1988 Federal Register. See page 5860). Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. New Residential Wood Heaters.
    57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; General preamble for future proposed rulemakings.
    57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Supplemental; General preamble for future proposed rulemakings.
    58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Executive Order 12866 of October 4, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review.
    59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994). Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
    59 FR 16690 (April 7, 1994), Economic Incentive Program Rules, Final rule and guidance.
    62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997), Executive Order 13045 of April 21, 1997, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
    62 FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final rule.
    62 FR 48480 (September 16, 1997). Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
    64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999, Federalism.
    64 FR 45170 (August 19, 1999). Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revisions for Six California Air Pollution Control Districts.
    65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments.
    "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," EPA, January 2001.
    66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
    67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002). Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Progress, Attainment, and Maintenance State Implementation Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide; California; final rule.
    69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004). Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes; Final Rule.
    EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/600/P - 99/002aF and EPA/600/P - 99/002bF, October 2004.
    EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)," October 4, 2004.
    EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, "Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan, Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan," August 16, 2005.
    EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Guidance for Quantifying and Using Emission Reductions from Voluntary Woodstove Changeout Programs in State Implementation Plans" EPA-456/B-06-001, January 2006.
    Jordan, T., Seen, A., Jacobsen, G., 2006, "Levoglucosan as an atmospheric tracer for woodsmoke," Atmospheric Environment, 40 (27): 5316-5321.
    71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Final rule.
    75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Reformulated Gasoline and Diesel Fuels; California; Final rule.
    75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010). Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Final rule.
    76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
    77 FR 20308 (April 4, 2012). Approval and Promulgation of Implementations Plans; California Air Resources Board-In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus Regulation, and Drayage Truck Regulation; Final rule.
    78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final rule.
    EPA, "Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke," Publication No. EPA-456/B-13-001, revised March 2013.
    EPA, "Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone [and Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations," available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/2014revisedeiguidance_0.pdf.
    EPA's "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" (AP - 42).
    EPA, Burn Wise Emission Calculator.
    EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze," December 2014 Draft, 17 (section 2.3.2, Future Year Selection); available at State Implementation Plan (SIP) Attainment Demonstration Guidance.
    Targeted Air Shed grant program information, see https://www.epa.gov/grants/air-grants-and-funding.
    U.S. Census, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate for City of Portola, CA and State of California.
    Unemployment rates in Portola. See http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/California/Plumas-County/Portola/96122.html.
    Electricity rate in the City of Portola is 17.87cent/kWh. See Electricity Local at http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/portola/.
    H&S Performance, LLC, Consent Agreement and Final Order (docket no. CAA-HQ-2015-8248), entered December 17, 2015.
    CARB's facility search engine web site results for Plumas County in 2016. For more information see https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php.
    80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).  Air Quality Designations for the 2012 Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    80 FR 13672 (March 16, 2015). Subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. (Note: The proposed rule published on December 18, 2018, incorrectly references subpart AAA as 53 FR 5860 (March 15, 2015)).
    EPA, "Residential Wood Combustion Summary of Measures  -  DRAFT," January 2016.
    81 FR 36176 (June 6, 2016). Finding of Attainment and Approval of Attainment Plan for Klamath Falls, Oregon Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area; Final rule.
    81 FR 39424 (June 16, 2016). Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Final rule.
    81 FR 58010 (August 24, 2016). Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final rule.
    EPA, "PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance," EPA-454/P-16-001, November 17, 2016 draft, available at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/draft-pm25-precursor-demonstration-guidance.
    EPA, "Guideline on Air Quality Models," see Clean Air Act Permit Modeling Guidance.
    82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017); Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter.
    82 FR 9339 (February 2, 2017). Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.
    82 FR 14446 (March 21, 2017). Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Final rule.
    Email dated May 30, 2017, from Turkiewicz (CARB) to Ungvarsky (EPA) ("RE: additional background materials supporting Portola plan").
             Attachment ("Rollback for John.xlsx") to email dated May 30, 2017, from Turkiewicz (CARB) to Ungvarsky (EPA).
             Attachment ("Benefit calculation_Annual_Portola_2016_10_13.xlsx") in email dated May 30, 2017, from Turkiewicz (CARB) to Ungvarsky (EPA).
    EPA, Region IX, "Technical Support Document for the EPA's Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, City of Portola Ordinance 344, Wood Stove and Fireplace Ordinance," July 2017.
    Clear the Air, Check Before You Light (article published November 1, 2017 in the Portola Reporter).
    NSAQMD Press Release dated October 25, 2017, Greater Portola Area Wintertime Advisory Program in Effect.
    Email dated November 29, 2017, from Turkiewicz, (CARB) to Kay (EPA), RE: questions about the number of wood stoves in the Portola nonattainment area.
    EPA, Region IX Air Division, "Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan, Evaluation of incentive-based emission reductions relied upon in the Portola Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Plan," December 2017.
    CARB, "Portola Wood Stove Change-Out, 2017 Progress Report, Covering Change-outs Completed Through 12/31/2017" ("2017 Annual Report").
    83 FR 5537 (February 8, 2018). Air Plan Approval; OR, Oakridge; PM2.5 Moderate Plan, Finding of Attainment and Clean Data Determination.
    Email dated February 13, 2018, from CARB (Turkiewicz) to EPA (Bohning and Ungvarsky) regarding "Limiting Precursors."
 Attachment ("Species Trends.xlsx") to February 13, 2018 email from CARB (Turkiewicz) to EPA (Bohning and Ungvarsky).
    83 FR 9213 (March 5, 2018). Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, Final rule.
    83 FR 13871 (April 2, 2018). Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
    83 FR 23232 (May 18, 2018). Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; California Mobile Source Regulations; Final rule.
    Portola Monthly Air Quality Update from NSAQMD, September 2018.
    EPA Technical Analyses, Scott Bohning, EPA Region IX, 2018.

 Spreadsheet titled "Annual Rollback and Precursor Sensitivity.xlsx" edited by Bohning (EPA) from "Rollback for John.xlsx" originally in email dated May 30, 2017, from Turkiewicz (CARB) to Ungvarsky (EPA); edited spreadsheet includes various corrections in blue by Bohning.

 Spreadsheet titled "Benefit Calculation and Alternative Rollback.xlsx" edited by Bohning (EPA) from "Benefit calculation_Annual_Portola_2016_10_13.xlsx" originally in email dated May 30, 2017, from Turkiewicz (CARB) to Ungvarsky (EPA); edited spreadsheet includes annotations added by Bohning.

 Spreadsheet titled "Species Trends and NOx Sensitivity.xlsx" edited by Bohning (EPA) from "Species Trends.xlsx" originally in email dated February 13, 2018, from Kasia Turkiewicz (CARB) to Bohning and Ungvarsky (EPA); edited spreadsheet includes "NOx sensitivity" sheet added by Bohning.
    South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 ("Wood-Burning Devices") (amended May 3, 2013).
    Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rule 421 ("Mandatory Episodic Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid Fuel Burning") (amended September 24, 2009).
    NSAQMD Rules 300-317 ("Open Burning") (adopted September 11, 1991; October 25, 1991; June 10, 1992; and August 14, 1996).
    NSAQMD Rule 318 ("American Valley Burning Restrictions") (amended May 8, 1996).
    NSAQMD Rule 202 ("Visible Emissions") (adopted October 19, 1991).

D.  Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking
    Committee for a Better Arvin, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
    Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).