[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54011-54012]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Brookings
Regional Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 1.44 acres of
airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to
authorize the sale of airport property located at Brookings Regional
Airport, Brookings, South Dakota. The aforementioned land is not needed
for aeronautical use. The property is located approximately 6 miles
south east of the airport, on the north side of 217th Street between
475th Ave. and 476th Ave., just east of the grove of trees. There was
an FAA-owned outer marker located on the subject property, but the
outer marker was abandoned when the runway it was serving was relocated
and re-aligned. Currently the land is being used for agriculture and
does not have an aeronautical use. The land will continue to be used
for agriculture.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, Mr. Dave Anderson, Deputy
Manager, 2301 University Drive, Building 23B, Bismarck, ND, 58504,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and Ms. Jackie Lanning,
City Engineer, Brookings, SD, 520 3rd. Street, Suite 140, Brookings, SD
57006,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Mr. Dave Anderson, Deputy Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, 2301
University Drive, Bld. 23B, Bismarck, ND, Telephone Number: (701) 323-
7380/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dave Anderson, Deputy Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District
Office, 2301 University Drive, Bld. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504. Telephone
Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that

requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The property was purchased in 1991 with an Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) grant. It was used for an outer marker for the approach
to Runway 12/30 until the runway was relocated and re-aligned. The
outer marker was removed after the new runway was constructed. The City
of Brookings is proposing to sell the land for agricultural use. An
appraised value of the land is $10,944.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Brookings Regional Airport,
Brookings, South Dakota from federal land covenants, subject to a
reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on
the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    The description of the property is S 285' of W 220' of SE\1/4\
SW\1/4\ SEC 15-109-49. It consists of 1.44 acres.

    Issued in Bismarck, North Dakota, on September 22, 2021.
David P. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, FAA, Great
Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-21089 Filed 9-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78954-78966]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27197]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598; FRL-9955-00-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT16

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of
Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
withdraw the federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions that require
affected electricity generating units (EGUs) in Texas to participate in
Phase 2 of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs
for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). Withdrawal of the FIP requirements is intended
to address a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanding the CSAPR Phase 2
SO2 budget for Texas to the EPA for reconsideration. The EPA
is also proposing to determine that, following withdrawal of the FIP
requirements, sources in Texas will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state
with regard to the 1997 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and that the EPA
therefore will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements for
Texas sources to address transported PM2.5 pollution under
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to that
NAAQS. Finally, the proposal includes a sensitivity analysis showing
that the set of actions the EPA has taken or expects to take in
response to the D.C. Circuit's decision, including the removal of Texas
EGUs from the two CSAPR trading programs as well as the recent removal
of Florida EGUs from Phase 2 of the CSAPR trading programs for ozone-
season NOX emissions, would not adversely impact the
analytic demonstration for the Agency's 2012 determination that CSAPR
participation meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria to qualify as an
alternative to the application of best available retrofit technology
(BART). No changes to the Regional Haze Rule are proposed as part of
this rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016. To
request a public hearing, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below by November 17, 2016. The EPA
does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0598, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Miller, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated under CSAPR are fossil fuel-
fired boilers and stationary combustion turbines that serve generators
producing electricity for sale, including combined cycle units and
units operating as part of systems that cogenerate electricity and
other useful energy output. Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category                NAICS * Code        potentially
                                                    regulated industries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.........................          221112   Fossil fuel-fired
                                                     electric power
                                                     generation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated. To
determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 97.404 and
97.704. If you have questions regarding the applicability of CSAPR to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.

I. Overview
II. Background
    A. History and Summary of CSAPR
    B. CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative
III. Withdrawal of Certain CSAPR FIP Requirements for Texas EGUs
IV. Texas' Good Neighbor Obligation With Regard to the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS
V. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding CSAPR Participation as a BART
Alternative
    A. Summary of 2012 CSAPR-Better-Than-BART Analytic Demonstration
    B. Impact on 2012 Analytic Demonstration of Actions Responding
to the Remand of CSAPR Phase 2 Budgets
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Overview

    The EPA promulgated CSAPR in 2011 in order to address the
obligations of states--and of the EPA when states have not met their
obligations--under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit air
pollution contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfering with maintenance by, any other state with regard to several
NAAQS, including the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ To address
Texas' transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
regard to this NAAQS, CSAPR established FIP requirements for affected
EGUs in Texas, including emissions budgets that apply to the EGUs'
collective annual emissions of SO2 and NOX. In
July 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on a range of challenges
to CSAPR in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II)
denying most claims but remanding several CSAPR emissions budgets to
the EPA for reconsideration, including the Phase 2 SO2
budget for Texas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and 40 CFR part 97).
    \2\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (EME Homer City II),
795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The court also remanded the
Phase 2 SO2 budgets for three other states and the Phase
2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states, including
Texas. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA proposes to address the remand of the Texas
Phase 2 SO2 budget by withdrawing the FIP provisions
requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program in
Phase 2, which begins with 2017 emissions.\3\ Although the court's
decision specifically remanded only Texas' Phase 2 SO2
budget, the court's rationale for remanding that budget also implicates
Texas' Phase 2 annual NOX budget because the SO2
and annual NOX budgets were developed through an integrated
analysis and were promulgated to meet a common PM2.5
transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Withdrawal
of the FIP provisions is intended to address the remand by eliminating
the requirement for Texas EGUs to comply with the EPA-established Phase
2 budgets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With regard to each of the other remanded budgets, the EPA
either has already withdrawn or expects to withdraw the FIP
provisions requiring the EGUs in the affected state to participate
in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading programs in Phase 2
through other actions, as discussed in section III.
    \4\ The D.C. Circuit also remanded the CSAPR Phase 2 ozone-
season NOX budget established for Texas EGUs with regard
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138. As
discussed in section III, in another action the EPA has withdrawn
the FIP requirements for Texas EGUs regarding the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and has promulgated new FIP requirements for those EGUs regarding
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This proposal has no effect on any CSAPR FIP
requirements for Texas EGUs concerning ozone-season NOX
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Removal of Texas EGUs from the CSAPR trading programs for
SO2 and annual NOX as proposed would make it
necessary to use other means to address any remaining transport
obligation for Texas under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard
to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In this action, based on a
reevaluation of PM2.5 data in the CSAPR final rule record in
light of the D.C. Circuit's reasoning in another portion of the EME
Homer City II decision, the EPA is proposing to determine that Texas
would not have any such remaining PM2.5 transport obligation
in Phase 2 of CSAPR. Accordingly, in the absence of a Texas transport
obligation with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is
also proposing to determine that the Agency will have no obligation to
issue new FIP requirements for Texas sources to address transported
PM2.5 pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
regard to this NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Reevaluation of PM2.5 data in the CSAPR final
rule record in light of the D.C. Circuit's reasoning would similarly
support a determination that Texas would have no PM2.5
transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
regard to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the EPA is not
proposing to make a determination in this action as to any
obligation of Texas with regard to that NAAQS because Texas EGUs are
not subject to CSAPR requirements with regard to that NAAQS.

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

    Participation in CSAPR is relied on by numerous states as an
alternative to meeting source-specific BART requirements under the
Regional Haze Rule.\6\ In accordance with the provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule, the EPA's 2012 determination that implementation of
CSAPR meets the criteria for a BART alternative was based on an
analytic demonstration that implementation of CSAPR would result in
greater reasonable progress than BART toward restoring natural
visibility conditions in relevant locations. This proposal includes a
sensitivity analysis showing that if the set of actions the EPA has
taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of
various CSAPR Phase 2 budgets had been reflected in that analytic
demonstration, the revised analysis still would have demonstrated that
implementation of CSAPR in the remaining covered states meets the
criteria for a BART alternative for those states. Accordingly, based on
consideration of this analysis, the EPA sees no reason to propose any
revision to the current Regional Haze Rule provision allowing states
whose EGUs continue to participate in a CSAPR trading program for a
given pollutant to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative
for its BART-eligible EGUs for that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing
Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal
Implementation Plans, 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012) (CSAPR-Better-than-
BART rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, however, if and when this proposal is finalized,
Texas will no longer be eligible to rely on CSAPR participation as an
alternative to certain regional haze obligations including the
determination and application of source-specific SO2 BART.
Any such remaining obligations are not addressed in this proposed
action and would be addressed through other state implementation plan
(SIP) or FIP actions as appropriate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA notes that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), CSAPR
implementation is available as a NOX BART alternative for
a state whose EGUs are subject to CSAPR requirements for either
annual NOX emissions or ozone-season NOX
emissions. See 77 FR at 33652; see also supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections II.A and II.B provide background on CSAPR and on CSAPR
participation as a BART alternative, respectively. The proposed
withdrawal of the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in
the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual
NOX is addressed in section III. Section IV discusses the
proposal to determine that, following finalization of the proposed
withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP requirements related to PM2.5,
Texas would have no remaining transport obligation under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the EPA accordingly would have no obligation to issue new FIP
requirements for Texas sources to address such a transport obligation.
The sensitivity analysis of the 2012 analytic demonstration supporting
CSAPR participation as a BART alternative is described in section V.

II. Background

A. History and Summary of CSAPR

    The EPA initially promulgated CSAPR in 2011 to address the
obligations of states--and of the EPA when states have not met their
obligations--under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often referred to as
the ``good neighbor'' provision, to prohibit transported air pollution
contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering with
maintenance by, any other state with regard to the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\8\ To reduce transported PM2.5
pollution, CSAPR sets limits on annual emissions of NOX and
SO2 as precursors to PM2.5. To reduce transported
ozone pollution, CSAPR sets limits on ozone-season emissions of
NOX as a precursor to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See generally 76 FR 48208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSAPR's emissions limitations are defined in terms of emissions
``budgets'' for the collective emissions from affected EGUs in each
covered state. The emissions limitations are phased in, with the Phase
1 and Phase 2 budgets originally scheduled to apply starting in January
2012 and January 2014, respectively. Affected EGUs are subject to FIP
provisions requiring them to participate in one or more of several
CSAPR federal allowance trading programs established as flexible
mechanisms to achieve compliance with the emissions budgets. CSAPR also
contains provisions under which the EPA will approve optional SIP
revisions that modify or replace the CSAPR FIP requirements while
allowing states to continue to meet their transport obligations using
either the CSAPR federal trading programs or integrated CSAPR state
trading programs that apply emissions budgets of the same or greater
stringency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of state, industry, and other petitioners challenged CSAPR
in the D.C. Circuit, which stayed and then vacated the rule, ruling on
only a subset of petitioners' claims. However, in April 2014 the
Supreme Court reversed the vacatur and remanded to the D.C. Circuit for
resolution of petitioners' remaining claims.\10\ The D.C. Circuit then
granted the EPA's motion to lift the stay and to toll the rule's
deadlines by three years.\11\ Consequently, implementation of CSAPR
Phase 1 began in January 2015 and implementation of Phase 2 is
scheduled to begin in January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
(2014), reversing 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
    \11\ Order, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302
(D.C. Cir. issued October 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Supreme Court remand, the D.C. Circuit conducted
further proceedings to address petitioners' remaining claims. In July
2015, the court issued a decision denying most of the claims but
remanding the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season
NOX budgets for eleven states to the EPA for
reconsideration.\12\ Petitions challenging CSAPR amendments promulgated
in 2011 and 2012 are currently being held in abeyance pending
completion of the EPA's proceedings in response to the D.C. Circuit's
remand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 138.
    \13\ Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 12-1023 (D.C.
Cir.) (challenging amendments published at 76 FR 80760 (December 27,
2011)); Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. EPA, No. 12-1163 (D.C.
Cir.) (challenging amendments published at 77 FR 10324 (February 21,
2012)); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1346 (D.C. Cir.)
(challenging amendments published at 77 FR 34830 (June 12, 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since receipt of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision, the EPA has
engaged the affected states to determine appropriate next steps to
address the decision with regard to each state. The EPA expects that
potentially material changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting
from the D.C. Circuit's remand will be limited to Texas, based on the
withdrawal of FIP requirements proposed here, and, as discussed below,
to Florida, based on the withdrawal of FIP requirements recently
finalized in another action. With regard to the remanded Phase 2
SO2 budgets, as discussed in section III, the EPA expects
that EGUs in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina will continue to
participate in CSAPR trading programs for SO2 and annual
NOX pursuant to approved SIP revisions (with equally or more
stringent emissions budgets), making Texas the only state whose EGUs
would no longer participate in these programs because of the remand.

    With regard to the remanded ozone-season NOX budgets, in
September 2016 the EPA promulgated a final rule updating CSAPR to
address states' good neighbor obligations with regard to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\14\ The rule also responded to the remand of the original Phase
2 ozone-season NOX budgets established to address transport
obligations with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS by withdrawing the FIP
provisions requiring EGUs in the eleven states with remanded budgets to
comply with those budgets for emissions after 2016. The EPA determined
that none of those eleven states will have a remaining transport
obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997
ozone NAAQS, but for eight of those states, including Texas, the rule
established new budgets to address transport obligations with regard to
the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. EGUs in the three states with
remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for which the EPA
did not establish new budgets--Florida, North Carolina, and South
Carolina--are no longer required to participate in a CSAPR trading
program for ozone-season NOX emissions to address ozone
transport obligations after 2016. However, because EGUs in North
Carolina and South Carolina \15\ are expected to continue to
participate in a CSAPR trading program for annual NOX
emissions in order to address PM2.5 transport obligations,
Florida is expected to be the only state originally covered by CSAPR
for NOX emissions for which all such coverage is ending as a
result of the EPA's set of actions to address the remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016) (CSAPR Update rule).
    \15\ North Carolina EGUs remain subject to FIP provisions
requiring participation in a CSAPR trading program for annual
NOX emissions. The EPA's expectation that South Carolina
EGUs will continue to participate in a CSAPR program for annual
NOX emissions is based on South Carolina's commitment to
submit a SIP revision that will include such requirements, as noted
above and discussed in section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas EGUs are currently subject to CSAPR FIP provisions requiring
participation in the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and
the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program. Texas EGUs are also
subject to FIP provisions requiring participation in other CSAPR
federal trading programs for ozone-season NOX emissions.
This proposal would withdraw the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to
participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2
and annual NOX emissions after 2016, but would have no
effect on any CSAPR FIP requirements applicable to Texas EGUs relating
to ozone-season NOX emissions after 2016, which, as
discussed in the preceding paragraph, were promulgated in the recently
finalized CSAPR Update rule and were not subject to the D.C. Circuit's
remand.

B. CSAPR Participation as a BART Alternative

    The Regional Haze Rule implements CAA requirements for the
protection of visibility, focusing on visibility impairment that is
caused by the emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area.\16\ CAA section 169A(a)(1) sets a national
goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in certain Class I
areas.\17\ CAA section 169A(b)(2) requires states to revise their SIPs
to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward this national goal, including requirements for the
application of best available retrofit technology (BART) by any BART-
eligible sources \18\ that emit any air pollutant that may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area. The air pollutants that may cause or contribute to
visibility impairment include both SO2 and NOX.
Under CAA section 110(c), where the EPA disapproves or finds that a
state has failed to make such a SIP submittal, the EPA must promulgate
a FIP addressing these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. Earlier this year, the EPA
proposed amendments to other portions of the Regional Haze Rule but
did not propose any substantive amendments to the provisions related
to BART. Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for
State Plans, 81 FR 26942 (May 4, 2016).
    \17\ The 156 mandatory Class I federal areas in which visibility
has been determined to be an important value are listed at subpart D
of 40 CFR part 81. For brevity, these areas are referred to here
simply as ``Class I areas.''
    \18\ A BART-eligible source is generally a source in any one of
26 specified categories, including fossil fuel-fired steam electric
plants, that was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962; was in
existence on August 7, 1977; and has the potential to emit 250 tons
per year of any air pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regional Haze Rule's BART provisions generally direct states to
identify all BART-eligible sources; determine which of those BART-
eligible sources are subject to BART requirements because the sources
emit air pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area; determine
source-specific BART for each source that is subject to BART
requirements, based on an analysis taking specified factors into
consideration; and include emission limitations reflecting those BART
determinations in their SIPs.\19\ However, the rule also provides each
state with the flexibility to adopt an allowance trading program or
other alternative measure instead of requiring source-specific BART
controls, so long as the alternative measure is demonstrated to achieve
greater reasonable progress than BART toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).
    \20\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regional Haze Rule also sets out criteria for demonstrating
that an alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than
source-specific BART. The regulations include a specific so-called
``better-than-BART'' test that may be satisfied in one of two ways: (1)
If the distribution of emissions under the alternative measure is not
substantially different than under BART and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions; or (2) if the distribution of
emissions is significantly different and an air quality modeling study
for the best and worst 20 percent of days shows an improvement in
visibility from the alternative measure relative to BART.\21\ In order
for the alternative measure to pass this ``better-than-BART'' test
based on such an air quality modeling study, the modeling must
demonstrate that two criteria (referred to below as ``prongs'') are
met: first, visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and
second, there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by
comparing the average differences in visibility conditions under BART
and the alternative measure across all affected Class I areas. In
addition to the specific test, the regulations also include a more
general test that allows states (or the EPA) to demonstrate that an
alternative measure provides for greater reasonable progress than BART
based on the clear weight of evidence.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
    \22\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, the EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that
participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given
pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a
CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented
through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART alternative
for those EGUs for that pollutant.\23\ In

promulgating the amendment, the EPA relied on an analytic demonstration
of an improvement in visibility from CSAPR implementation relative to
BART based on an air quality modeling study, in accordance with the
second approach to the specific better-than-BART test summarized above.
Since the EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by
CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or
FIPs.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also generally 77 FR 33642. Legal
challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry,
and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).
    \24\ The EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation
for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012). The EPA has approved Minnesota's SIP relying on
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. 77 FR 34801, 34806 (June 12,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the 2012 analytic demonstration that CSAPR provides
for greater reasonable progress than BART, the EPA treated Texas EGUs
as subject to CSAPR for SO2 and annual NOX (as
well as ozone-season NOX) and treated Florida EGUs as
subject to CSAPR for ozone-season NOX. The EPA recognizes
that the treatment of these EGUs in the analysis would have been
different if the Florida FIP withdrawal recently finalized and the
Texas FIP withdrawal proposed in this action had been known before the
demonstration was prepared. In order to address any potential concern
about continuing to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative
for EGUs in the remaining CSAPR states, the EPA is providing a
sensitivity analysis explicitly addressing the potential effect on the
2012 analytic demonstration if the treatment of Texas and Florida EGUs
had been consistent with the EPA's expectations for the updated scope
of CSAPR coverage following the D.C. Circuit's remand. As discussed in
section V below, the analysis supports the continued conclusion that
CSAPR participation would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
despite such a change in the treatment of Texas and Florida EGUs.
Consequently, the proposed FIP withdrawal does not suggest any reason
to consider amending the current Regional Haze Rule provision
authorizing the use of CSAPR participation as a BART alternative for
BART-eligible EGUs for a given pollutant in states whose EGUs continue
to participate in a CSAPR trading program for that pollutant.

III. Withdrawal of Certain CSAPR FIP Requirements for Texas EGUs

    As summarized in section I above, the EPA proposes to respond to
the D.C. Circuit's remand of the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budget
for Texas by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to
participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2
and annual NOX emissions with regard to emissions occurring
after 2016. This section discusses the rationale for this proposed
action.
    In the CSAPR final rule, the EPA determined that 23 states,
including Texas, had transport obligations with regard to the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
or both, and established SO2 and annual NOX
emissions budgets for each of the states.\25\ The first step in the
EPA's analysis was to identify PM2.5 receptors that were
projected to have difficulty attaining or maintaining either the 1997
NAAQS or the 2006 NAAQS in 2012 without emission reductions from CSAPR.
In the second step, the EPA identified states that contribute more than
a threshold amount of PM2.5 pollution (i.e., one percent of
the NAAQS) for at least one of those NAAQS to at least one of the
identified nonattainment or maintenance receptors in a different
state--in other words, a ``linkage'' was determined. In the third step,
the EPA projected the SO2 and annual NOX emission
reductions and the remaining emissions that would be achieved by EGUs
in all modeled states at a range of control cost levels as well as the
resulting improvements in air quality at each of the identified
PM2.5 receptors. For annual NOX, the EPA
evaluated a range of control cost levels up to $2,500 per ton, and for
SO2, the EPA evaluated a range of control cost levels up to
$10,000 per ton in combination with a NOX control cost level
of $500 per ton. The EPA then set SO2 and annual
NOX emissions budgets for EGUs in each of the 23 covered
states at the remaining emissions corresponding to a combination of
SO2 and annual NOX control cost levels at which
the air quality problems at all, or most, of the receptors linked to
that state were projected to be resolved. The budgets were implemented
through FIP provisions requiring the affected EGUs in each covered
state to participate in allowance trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The EPA also determined in CSAPR and a related supplemental
rule that 25 states, including Texas, had transport obligations with
regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In all, 28 states were
determined to have transport obligations related to either
PM2.5, ozone, or both. The EPA's process for determining
states' emissions limitations under CSAPR and the associated CSAPR
FIP requirements is described at length in the preamble to the CSAPR
final rule. See generally 77 FR at 48222-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of seven states, including Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas, the PM2.5 air quality problems at all
linked receptors were projected to be resolved at an SO2
control cost level of $500 per ton. The CSAPR SO2 budgets
for these states were therefore set based on the projected
SO2 emissions remaining after the reductions achievable at
that control cost level. For the other 16 states covered by CSAPR for
PM2.5, the air quality problems at all linked receptors were
not projected to be resolved until (or after) an SO2 control
cost level of $2,300 per ton, and the CSAPR SO2 budgets were
set based on the projected SO2 emissions remaining after the
reductions achievable at that higher cost level. For all 23 states
linked to a PM2.5 receptor, the CSAPR annual NOX
budgets were set based on the projected NOX emissions
remaining after the reductions achievable at a control cost level of
$500 per ton. The EPA promulgated FIP provisions requiring EGUs in the
16 states whose SO2 budgets were set based on a $2,300-per-
ton SO2 control cost level to participate in the CSAPR
SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, requiring EGUs in the seven
states whose SO2 budgets were set based on a $500-per-ton
SO2 control cost level to participate in the CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, and requiring EGUs in all 23
states to participate in the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program.
    Petitioners challenged the EPA's use of a $500-per-ton control cost
level to set the SO2 budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas, citing an analysis the EPA had prepared for the
CSAPR proposal projecting that the air quality problems at certain
PM2.5 receptors would be resolved at SO2 control
cost levels below $500 per ton. In its July 2015 decision, the D.C.
Circuit agreed that because modeling in the rulemaking record from the
CSAPR proposal indicated that air quality problems at all
PM2.5 receptors linked to these four states could have been
resolved at SO2 control costs below $500 per ton, the Phase
2 SO2 budgets set in the CSAPR final rule based on control
costs of $500 per ton may be more stringent than necessary to address
the four states' PM2.5 transport obligations. The court
therefore found the Phase 2 SO2 budgets for these four
states invalid and remanded them to the EPA for reconsideration.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 128-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to respond to the remand of
the Phase 2 SO2 budget for Texas by withdrawing the FIP
provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR NOX
Annual Trading Program with regard to emissions during Phase 2 of those

programs, which is now scheduled to begin in 2017. Withdrawal of the
FIP provisions related to the SO2 trading program
encompasses withdrawal of the requirement for Texas EGUs to comply with
the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budget, thereby addressing the
specific rule provision remanded by the court. The EPA is proposing to
withdraw the FIP provisions related to annual NOX in
addition to the FIP provisions related to SO2 because, as
just discussed, the CSAPR FIP requirements for SO2 and
annual NOX applicable to the EGUs in each covered state were
determined through an integrated analysis and were promulgated in
combination to remedy that state's PM2.5 transport
obligation. The court's finding that CSAPR's Phase 2 requirements may
be more stringent than necessary to address Texas' PM2.5
transport obligation therefore implicates the state's Phase 2 budgets
for both SO2 and annual NOX.
    The proposed withdrawal of the FIP requirements would be consistent
with the approach the EPA has taken in response to previous judicial
remands regarding obligations of individual states under other EPA
rules addressing multiple states' transport obligations. For example,
in Michigan v. EPA, the court found that the EPA had failed to
adequately support the inclusion of Wisconsin in the NOX SIP
Call.\27\ The EPA responded to that remand by amending the rule to
exclude Wisconsin.\28\ Similarly, in North Carolina v. EPA, the court
found that the EPA had failed to adequately support the inclusion of
Minnesota in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) with regard to the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as well as the corresponding CAIR
FIP provisions applicable to Minnesota units.\29\ The EPA responded to
that remand by indefinitely staying CAIR's PM2.5 transport
obligation for Minnesota as well as the CAIR FIP provisions requiring
Minnesota units to participate in CAIR's federal trading programs for
SO2 and annual NOX.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 213 F.3d 663, 681 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Both the court's
decision and the EPA's response were limited to the NOX
SIP Call's requirements related to the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
because the rule's parallel requirements related to the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS had already been indefinitely stayed as to all states.
    \28\ Interstate Ozone Transport: Response to Court Decisions on
the NOX SIP Call, NOX SIP Call Technical
Amendments, and Section 126 Rules, 69 FR 21604, 21636-37 (April 21,
2004).
    \29\ 531 F.3d 896, 926-28 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \30\ Administrative Stay of Clean Air Interstate Rule for
Minnesota; Administrative Stay of Federal Implementation Plan to
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone for
Minnesota, 74 FR 56721, 56722 (November 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed withdrawal of FIP requirements is also consistent with
the actions the EPA either has already taken or expects to take to
address the D.C. Circuit's remand of other CSAPR Phase 2 budgets. With
regard to the remanded Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for
eleven states, the EPA withdrew the FIP provisions requiring compliance
with those budgets in a rule promulgated earlier this year updating
CSAPR to address states' transport obligations with regard to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA amended the FIP provisions
applicable to EGUs in the eleven states with remanded budgets to
eliminate the CSAPR FIP requirements related to the 1997 ozone NAAQS
with regard to emissions occurring after 2016, coincident with the
transition from CSAPR Phase 1 to CSAPR Phase 2.\31\ The EPA determined
that none of the eleven states would have remaining transport
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the
1997 ozone NAAQS following the FIP withdrawal.\32\ However, the EPA
also determined that eight of the states have transport obligations
under that section with regard to the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and established new CSAPR ozone-season NOX budgets for those
states related to that NAAQS starting with emissions occurring in
2017.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 81 FR at 74576.
    \32\ See 81 FR at 74524.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the remanded Phase 2 SO2 budgets for
Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the EPA either has addressed or
expects to address the remand through withdrawal of the relevant FIP
requirements in the context of SIP approval actions for these states.
As discussed in section II.A above, the CSAPR regulations provide each
covered state with the option to meet its transport obligations through
SIP revisions replacing the federal trading programs and requiring the
state's EGUs to participate in integrated CSAPR state trading programs
that apply emissions budgets of the same or greater stringency.\34\
Under the CSAPR regulations, when such a SIP revision is approved, the
corresponding FIP provisions are automatically withdrawn. As discussed
in section II.B above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to rely on
CSAPR participation for a given pollutant--through either a CSAPR
federal trading program or an integrated CSAPR state trading program--
as a BART alternative for that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before proposing this action, the EPA communicated with officials
in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas regarding the EPA's
intent to respond to the remand of the Phase 2 SO2 budgets
by withdrawing the FIP provisions requiring the states' EGUs to
participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2
and annual NOX.\35\ The EPA explained that the state would
lose its ability to rely on CSAPR participation as a BART alternative
for SO2 and/or NOX if its EGUs no longer
participated in the CSAPR trading programs, but that the state could
preserve that ability, if desired, by submitting a CSAPR SIP revision
replacing the CSAPR federal trading programs with integrated CSAPR
state trading programs applying state-established budgets no less
stringent than the remanded federally-established budgets.\36\ Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina have indicated their preference to pursue
the SIP revision option. The EPA has already approved Alabama's CSAPR
SIP revision, and the FIP provisions requiring its EGUs to participate
in the CSAPR federal trading programs for SO2 and annual
NOX, including the requirements to comply with the
federally-established SO2 and annual NOX budgets,
have therefore been automatically withdrawn.\37\ Georgia and South
Carolina have committed to submit CSAPR SIP revisions,\38\ and the EPA
is not

proposing withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP provisions for their EGUs based
on the expectation that such withdrawal will be automatically
accomplished as a result of SIP approval actions.\39\ Because Texas has
not indicated an intent to submit a CSAPR SIP revision, the EPA is
proceeding with this proposed action to withdraw the FIP requirements
for Texas EGUs, consistent with the intended approach previously
communicated to officials for all four states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See memo entitled ``The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Plan for Responding to the Remand of the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Phase 2 SO2 Budgets for Alabama, Georgia,
South Carolina and Texas'' from Janet G. McCabe, EPA Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Air
Division Directors (June 27, 2016), available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/CSAPR/pdfs/CSAPR_SO2_Remand_Memo.pdf and
in the docket for this proposed action. The memo directs the
Regional Air Division Directors to share the memo with state
officials. The EPA also communicated orally with officials in
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas in advance of the memo.
    \36\ Although the D.C. Circuit remanded the states' Phase 2
SO2 budgets because it determined that the budgets may be
more stringent than necessary to address the states' identified
PM2.5 transport obligations, nothing in the court's
decision affects the states' authority to seek incorporation into
their SIPs of state-established budgets as stringent as the remanded
federally-established budgets or limits the EPA's authority to
approve such SIP revisions. See CAA sections 116, 110(k)(3).
    \37\ Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016).
    \38\ See letters to Heather McTeer Toney, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 4, from Judson H. Turner, Director of the
Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (May 26, 2016) and from Myra C. Reece, Director of
Environmental Affairs, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (April 19, 2016), available in the docket for
this proposed action. The EPA has conditionally approved the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 visibility element for multiple
NAAQS in the Georgia and South Carolina SIPs based on each state's
commitment to submit a CSAPR SIP revision. 81 FR 65899, 65900
(September 26, 2016) (Georgia); 81 FR 56512, 56513 (August 22, 2016)
(South Carolina).
    \39\ If the EPA does not receive the expected SIP submittal from
either of these states by the deadline provided in its respective
commitment letter or disapproves such a SIP submittal, the EPA will
propose to withdraw the FIP provisions requiring that state's EGUs
to participate in the CSAPR federal trading programs for
SO2 and annual NOX, consistent with the action
proposed here for Texas EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed withdrawal of the FIP
provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the CSAPR trading
programs for SO2 and annual NOX with regard to
emissions occurring after 2016.

IV. Texas' Good Neighbor Obligation With Regard to the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS

    Withdrawal of the CSAPR FIP requirements as proposed in section III
above would revive the need to consider Texas' transport obligation
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and to address any remaining obligation through
other means. As summarized in section I above, the EPA proposes to
determine that Texas would have no remaining transport obligation under
this section with regard to this NAAQS following withdrawal of the FIP
requirements, and consequently also proposes to determine that the EPA
will have no obligation to issue new FIP requirements as to Texas's
transport obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard
to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS after withdrawal of the
current FIP requirements. This section discusses the rationale for
these proposed determinations.
    In the CSAPR rulemaking, one of the receptors that the EPA
projected would have difficulty attaining and maintaining both the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS was a receptor located in Madison County, Illinois (monitor ID
171191007).\40\ The modeling for the CSAPR final rule showed that Texas
was projected to contribute more than the threshold amount of
PM2.5 pollution necessary in order to be considered
``linked'' to the Madison County receptor for annual
PM2.5.\41\ Based on the linkage for the 1997 annual NAAQS,
the EPA consequently determined emissions limitations for
SO2 and annual NOX from Texas EGUs and
promulgated FIP requirements reflecting these emission limitations.\42\
These are the FIP requirements that the EPA is now proposing to
withdraw in order to address the D.C. Circuit's remand of the Phase 2
SO2 budget for Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 76 FR at 48233, 48235.
    \41\ 76 FR at 48241.
    \42\ The modeling for the CSAPR final rule also linked Texas to
the Madison County receptor with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, but the EPA did not rely on the linkage with
regard to that NAAQS as a basis for establishing CSAPR FIP
requirements for Texas EGUs. See 76 FR at 48243, 48214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating what, if any, remaining transport obligation Texas
would have under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS following withdrawal of the current FIP
requirements as proposed, the EPA has reexamined data in the CSAPR
final rule record in light of the D.C. Circuit's other holdings in EME
Homer City II, specifically the court's rationale for remanding several
Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets. In the CSAPR rulemaking,
for purposes of identifying receptors projected to have air quality
problems and determining states that were linked to those receptors and
which therefore may have transport obligations, the EPA used air
quality projections for the year 2012, which was also the intended
start year for implementation of the Phase 1 budgets. The CSAPR final
rule record also contained air quality projections for 2014, which was
the intended start year for implementation of the Phase 2 budgets. The
2014 modeling results showed that some ozone receptors projected to
have air quality problems in 2012 would no longer be projected to have
air quality problems in 2014 before considering the emission reductions
from CSAPR, and petitioners argued that the EPA therefore lacked
authority to establish Phase 2 ozone-season NOX emissions
limitations for EGUs in states linked solely to those ozone receptors.
The D.C. Circuit agreed and held the Phase 2 ozone-season
NOX budgets for ten states invalid on that basis.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EME Homer City II, 795 F.3d at 129-30. The court also
remanded the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budget for an
eleventh state (Texas), but on different grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not discussed in the court's decision, the CSAPR final
rule record contains projections of 2014 air quality for the Madison
County PM2.5 receptor that are analogous to the projections
of 2014 air quality for the ozone receptors described above.
Specifically, the 2014 modeling results projected that the Madison
County receptor would have a maximum design value for annual
PM2.5 of 15.02 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
before considering the emissions reductions from CSAPR.\44\ This
projected value is below the value of 15.05 [mu]g/m\3\ that the EPA
used to determine whether a particular PM2.5 receptor should
be identified as having air quality problems that may trigger transport
obligations in upwind states with regard to the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.\45\ The Madison County receptor was the only
PM2.5 receptor with projected air quality problems to which
Texas was found to be linked based on the EPA's air quality modeling
for the CSAPR final rule. Therefore, given that the Madison County
receptor was projected to no longer have air quality problems
sufficient to trigger transport obligations with regard to the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the EPA's 2014 base case modeling for
the CSAPR final rule, and given the D.C. Circuit's holding discussed
above with regard to the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets,
the EPA proposes to find that, as of Phase 2 of CSAPR, Texas would not
significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS following withdrawal of the current CSAPR FIP requirements
applicable to Texas EGUs with regard to that NAAQS. Accordingly, the
EPA also proposes to determine that the Agency has no obligation to
issue new FIP requirements as to Texas under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS after withdrawal of the current FIP provisions requiring Texas
EGUs to participate in Phase 2 of the CSAPR federal trading programs
for SO2 and annual NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See projected 2014 base case maximum design value for
Madison County, Illinois receptor 171191007 at B-41 of the Air
Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140 (June 2011) (CSAPR Final Rule
Technical Support Document), available in the docket for this
proposed action.
    \45\ 76 FR at 48233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on the proposed determinations that Texas
will no longer have any remaining transport obligation under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with regard to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS following finalization of the proposed withdrawal of the FIP
provisions requiring Texas EGUs to participate in the SO2
and annual NOX trading programs during Phase 2 of CSAPR, and
that the EPA accordingly will have no obligation to issue new FIP
requirements for Texas sources to address such a transport obligation.

V. Sensitivity Analysis Regarding CSAPR Participation as a BART
Alternative

    As summarized in section II.B above, in 2012 the EPA amended the
Regional Haze Rule to authorize states whose EGUs participate in CSAPR
trading programs for a given pollutant to rely on CSAPR participation
as a BART alternative for that pollutant, basing that determination on
an analytic demonstration that implementation of CSAPR as expected to
take effect at the time of the 2012 revision would achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART toward the national goal of natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. This section discusses a
sensitivity analysis to the 2012 analytic demonstration showing that
the analysis would have supported the same conclusion if the actions
the EPA has proposed to take or has already taken in response to the
D.C. Circuit's remand of various CSAPR Phase 2 budgets--specifically,
the withdrawal of PM2.5-related CSAPR Phase 2 FIP
requirements for Texas EGUs proposed in this action and the recently
finalized withdrawal of ozone-related CSAPR Phase 2 FIP requirements
for Florida EGUs--were reflected in that analysis.

A. Summary of 2012 CSAPR-Better-Than-BART Analytic Demonstration

    When promulgating the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule, the EPA
relied on an analysis showing that CSAPR implementation meets the
Regional Haze Rule's criteria for a demonstration of greater reasonable
progress than BART toward natural visibility conditions as set forth in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).\46\ The analytic demonstration included an air
quality modeling study whose results passed the two-pronged test
described in section II.B above. The first prong ensures that the
alternative program will not cause a decline in visibility at any
affected Class I area. The second prong ensures that the alternative
program results in improvements in average visibility across all
affected Class I areas as compared to adopting source-specific BART.
Together, these tests ensure that the alternative program provides for
greater visibility improvement than would source-specific BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Technical Support Document for Demonstration of the
Transport Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0729-0014 (December 2011) (2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support
Document), available in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the air quality modeling study conducted for the 2012 analytic
demonstration, the EPA projected visibility conditions in affected
Class I areas \47\ based on 2014 emissions projections for two control
scenarios and used this modeling in conjunction with the 2014 base case
emissions projections and air quality modeling from the CSAPR final
rule record.\48\ One control scenario represents ``Nationwide BART''
and the other control scenario represents ``CSAPR + BART-elsewhere.''
The Nationwide BART scenario reflects projected SO2 and
NOX emissions from all EGUs nationwide (except Alaska and
Hawaii) after the application of source-specific BART controls to all
BART-eligible EGUs. In the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario, EGU
SO2 and NOX emissions reductions attributable to
CSAPR were applied throughout the 28-state CSAPR region wherever EGUs
are subject to CSAPR requirements for the respective pollutants, and
BART controls for SO2 and NOX were applied to all
BART-eligible EGUs outside the CSAPR region as well as to BART-eligible
EGUs in the CSAPR region that are not subject to CSAPR requirements for
the respective pollutants.\49\ The latter scenario reflects the fact
that source-specific BART would remain a regional haze SIP element in
states and for pollutants not covered by CSAPR requirements. In the
base case, neither BART controls nor the EGU SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions attributable to CSAPR were
reflected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The EPA identified two possible sets of ``affected Class I
areas'' to consider for purposes of the study and found that
implementation of CSAPR met the criteria for a BART alternative
whichever set was considered. See 77 FR at 33650.
    \48\ For additional detail on the 2014 base case, see the CSAPR
Final Rule Technical Support Document, supra note 44.
    \49\ Specifically, because Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma were covered by CSAPR only to address
ozone transport obligations, for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case,
EGUs in these states were assumed to be subject to CSAPR
requirements for ozone-season NOX emissions and source-
specific BART for SO2 (for BART-eligible EGUs). EGUs in
the remaining CSAPR states, all of which were covered by CSAPR to
address PM2.5 transport obligations, were assumed to be
subject to CSAPR requirements for both annual NOX and
SO2, and were also assumed to be subject to CSAPR ozone-
season NOX requirements where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all BART-eligible EGUs in the Nationwide BART scenario and for
BART-eligible EGUs not subject to CSAPR for a particular pollutant in
the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario, the modeled emission rates were
the presumptive EGU BART limits for SO2 and NOX
as specified in the BART Guidelines,\50\ unless an actual emission rate
at a given unit with existing controls was lower, in which case the
lower emission rate was modeled.\51\ The estimates of CSAPR annual
NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs for the CSAPR +
BART-elsewhere control scenario were based on the CSAPR Phase 2 budgets
promulgated in the CSAPR final rule, except that proposed rather than
final ozone-season NOX budgets were used for several states
because their budgets were not final at the time the modeling for the
CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario was performed.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51--Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule.
    \51\ For more details on the emissions and modeling of the
scenarios, see the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra
note 46.
    \52\ The use of proposed rather than final budgets for ozone-
season NOX emissions for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin had no material effect on the
overall emissions projections, because for each of the states except
Oklahoma, the analysis also reflected a final, comparably stringent
budget for annual NOX emissions, and while Oklahoma has
no CSAPR budget for annual NOX emissions, its final Phase
2 ozone-season NOX budget was unchanged from the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the CSAPR-Better-than-BART final rule, the EPA also conducted
an additional sensitivity analysis to address instances where certain
CSAPR budgets were increased after promulgation of the original CSAPR
final rule.\53\ The overall magnitude of the SO2 budget
increases (for nine states) was 129,295 tons per year, with budget
increases for Texas and Georgia accounting for approximately 70 percent
of that total. In addition, there was an overall increase in annual
NOX budgets (for thirteen states) of 49,818 tons per year.
In the sensitivity analysis, the EPA noted the dominance of sulfate
impacts on visibility for each control scenario and relatedly noted
that the vast majority of the projected visibility improvements in the
CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario were attributable to the SO2
reductions in that scenario, which were much larger than the
SO2 reductions in the Nationwide BART scenario.\54\ This was
especially true in the sixteen Class I areas that were identified as
being most impacted by Texas and Georgia (all in the South). The EPA
also concluded that the impact on the modeled visibility impacts at
Class I areas from the overall NOX budget increases would be
negligible. The EPA therefore focused the sensitivity analysis on the
increases in the SO2 budgets for Texas and Georgia and
considered highly conservative assumptions for the air quality impacts

that would result from those budget increases in order to ensure that
the conclusions from the modeling analysis remained robust in light of
all the budget increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See memo entitled ``Sensitivity Analysis Accounting for
Increases in Texas and Georgia Transport Rule State Emissions
Budgets,'' Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729-0323 (May 29, 2012)
(2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo), available in the docket
for this proposed action.
    \54\ Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR-Better-than-BART modeling analysis showed that the CSAPR
+ BART-elsewhere alternative passed both prongs of the two-pronged test
described in section II.B above and that CSAPR implementation therefore
met the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for a BART alternative. The first
prong of the test--i.e., whether the proposed BART alternative would
result in a decline in visibility in any Class I area--was evaluated by
comparing projected visibility conditions under the CSAPR + BART-
elsewhere case and the base case. The CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario
did not show visibility degradation relative to the base case at any of
the affected Class I areas on either the 20 percent best or the 20
percent worst visibility days. The second prong of the test--i.e.,
whether the proposed BART alternative would result in an overall
improvement in visibility across all affected Class I areas relative to
BART--was evaluated by comparing projected visibility conditions under
the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case and the Nationwide BART case. The CSAPR
+ BART-elsewhere scenario passed this prong of the test based on the
fact that, on average, modeled visibility improvement at the affected
Class I areas was greater under the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario
than under the Nationwide BART scenario on both the 20 percent best and
the 20 percent worst visibility days.

B. Impact on 2012 Analytic Demonstration of Actions Responding to the
Remand of CSAPR Phase 2 Budgets

    As discussed in section II.A above, although in EME Homer City II
the D.C. Circuit remanded the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 budgets for
four states and the CSAPR Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets
for eleven states, the EPA expects that with regard to most of these
states the remand will result in no material change to the scope of
CSAPR coverage. In the case of the remanded Phase 2 SO2
budgets for Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the states are
expected to continue to ensure that their EGUs comply with comparably
stringent CSAPR SO2 and annual NOX requirements
through SIP revisions. In the case of the remanded Phase 2 ozone-season
NOX budgets, eight of the states with remanded budgets
(including Texas) will continue to be subject to CSAPR to address ozone
transport obligations with regard to the more stringent 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and North Carolina and South Carolina, although no longer
covered by CSAPR to address ozone transport obligations, will continue
to be subject to CSAPR annual NOX requirements in order to
address their PM2.5 transport obligations. In considering
the potential impact of the remand of Phase 2 budgets on the 2012
CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration, the EPA therefore
believes that only two changes have potential relevance: The withdrawal
of the FIP provisions subjecting Florida EGUs to CSAPR ozone-season
NOX requirements that has already been finalized, and the
withdrawal of FIP provisions subjecting Texas EGUs to CSAPR
SO2 and annual NOX requirements that is proposed
in this action.
    With regard to the change in CSAPR requirements for Florida EGUs,
the EPA believes that the change would have no material impact on the
2012 analytic demonstration. Because Florida EGUs are no longer subject
to any CSAPR requirements for NOX emissions during Phase 2,
Florida is no longer eligible to rely on CSAPR participation as a
NOX BART alternative.\55\ If this information had been
available at the time of the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic
demonstration, the treatment of Florida EGUs in the base case and in
the Nationwide BART scenario would not have changed, but in the CSAPR +
BART-elsewhere scenario Florida EGUs would have been treated as subject
to NOX BART instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR
ozone-season NOX requirements. The Nationwide BART scenario
already includes projections of the annual NOX emissions
from Florida EGUs under NOX BART. The difference between the
projected annual NOX emissions of Florida EGUs in these two
scenarios is only 5,300 tons, which represents an increase of
approximately seven percent of the total annual NOX
emissions from Florida EGUs and approximately three tenths of one
percent of the total annual NOX emissions from EGUs in all
modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.\56\ Consistent
with the sensitivity analysis supporting the 2012 analytic
demonstration that showed the dominance of sulfate impacts on
visibility (especially in the South), small increases in Florida
NOX emissions are expected to have a negligible impact on
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. The EPA believes that
this relatively small increase in NOX emissions in the CSAPR
+ BART-elsewhere case would have been too small to cause any change in
the results of either prong of the two-pronged CSAPR-Better-than-BART
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The EPA has already approved the incorporation into
Florida's SIP of determinations regarding source-specific
NOX BART. 77 FR 71111, 71113-14 (November 29, 2012); 78
FR 53250, 53267 (August 29, 2013).
    \56\ See the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra
note 46, at table 2-5. The projected amounts of annual
NOX emissions from Florida EGUs are 81,000 tons in the
Nationwide BART scenario and 75,700 tons in the CSAPR + BART-
elsewhere scenario. The difference between these amounts is 5,300
tons. The quotient of 5,300 divided by 81,000 is 6.5%. The total
projected amount of annual NOX emissions from all states
in the table in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario is 1,755,900
tons (1,217,500 + 538,400). The quotient of 5,300 divided by
1,755,900 is 0.3%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the changes in CSAPR requirements for Texas EGUs,
the EPA believes that the changes would have no adverse impact on the
2012 analytic demonstration. Following withdrawal of the FIP provisions
as proposed, Texas EGUs would no longer be subject to CSAPR
requirements for SO2 emissions and Texas would therefore be
ineligible to rely on CSAPR as an SO2 BART alternative.
Texas EGUs would also no longer be subject to CSAPR requirements for
annual NOX emissions, but because the EGUs would continue to
be subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX
emissions, Texas would remain eligible to rely on CSAPR as a
NOX BART alternative.\57\ If this information had been
available at the time of the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART demonstration,
the treatment of Texas EGUs in the base case and in the Nationwide BART
case would not have changed, but in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case
Texas EGUs would have been treated as subject to SO2 BART
instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR SO2
requirements. For NOX, Texas EGUs would have been treated as
being subject to CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX
emissions only instead of being treated as subject to CSAPR
requirements for both ozone-season and annual NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4); see also supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nationwide BART scenario already includes projections of the
SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs under BART. Some of the CSAPR
states are projected to have lower emissions for a given pollutant in
the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario compared to the Nationwide BART
scenario. This occurs in CSAPR states where the majority of the EGUs
are not BART-eligible and/or where there were many EGUs with available
cost-effective controls (at the time of the analysis for the CSAPR
rulemaking). However, in other CSAPR states, the presumptive BART
limits lead to estimated emissions for a given pollutant that are lower
than what was

projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. This can occur in
CSAPR states that have numerous BART-eligible EGUs. In the case of
Texas, the projected SO2 emissions from affected EGUs in the
modeled Nationwide BART scenario (139,300 tons per year) are
considerably lower than the projected SO2 emissions from the
affected EGUs in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario (266,600 tons per
year as modeled, and up to approximately 317,100 tons, as addressed in
the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo).\58\ Treating Texas EGUs
in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario as subject to SO2
BART instead of CSAPR SO2 requirements would therefore have
reduced projected SO2 emissions by between 127,300 tons and
approximately 177,800 tons in this scenario, thereby improving
projected air quality in this scenario relative to projected air
quality in both the Nationwide BART scenario and the base case scenario
(in which the projected SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs would
not change).\59\ At the lower end of this range, a reduction in
SO2 emissions of 127,300 tons would represent a reduction of
over four percent of the total SO2 emissions from EGUs in
all modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.\60\ The EPA
has previously observed that the visibility improvements from CSAPR
relative to BART are primarily attributable to the greater reductions
in SO2 emissions from CSAPR across the overall modeled
region in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario relative to the
Nationwide BART scenario.\61\ In the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART
analytic demonstration as relied on for purposes of the CSAPR-Better-
than-BART rule, in which Texas SO2 emissions for the CSAPR +
BART-elsewhere scenario were represented at their higher projected
CSAPR levels instead of at their lower projected BART levels, the
difference in SO2 emission reductions for the overall
modeled region between the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario and the
Nationwide BART scenario was approximately 773,000 tons after
accounting for the increases in CSAPR SO2 budgets
promulgated after the CSAPR final rule.\62\ An additional
SO2 reduction of 127,300 tons or more in the CSAPR + BART-
elsewhere scenario--the result of revising this scenario to represent
Texas EGUs as subject to SO2 BART requirements instead of
CSAPR SO2 requirements--would increase this 773,000 ton
differential, which already favors implementation of CSAPR relative to
BART, by more than fifteen percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ For the projected annual SO2 emissions from
Texas EGUs for all scenarios, see the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical
Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-4. As discussed in
section V.A above, certain CSAPR budgets were increased after
promulgation of the CSAPR final rule (and the increases were
addressed in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo, supra
note 53). The increase in the Texas SO2 budget was 50,517
tons which, when added to the Texas SO2 emissions
projected in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario of 266,600 tons,
yields total potential SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs of
approximately 317,100 tons.
    \59\ The difference between 266,600 and 139,300 is 127,300. The
difference between 317,100 and 139,300 is 177,800.
    \60\ The total projected amount of annual SO2
emissions from all states in the table in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere
scenario is 2,918,500 tons (2,416,900 + 501,600). See the 2011
CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra note 46, at table 2-4.
The quotient of 127,300 divided by 2,918,500 is 4.3%.
    \61\ See the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis memo, supra
note 53, at 1-2.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling performed for the 2012 analytic demonstration does not
include projections of NOX emissions from Texas EGUs in a
scenario where the EGUs are assumed to be subject to CSAPR requirements
for ozone-season NOX but not annual NOX
emissions. However, in the base case used for the analytic
demonstration--i.e., without any NOx requirements from either CSAPR or
BART--the projected annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs
were only 2,600 tons higher than the annual NOX emissions
projected for the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere case in which it was assumed
that the EGUs were subject to CSAPR requirements for both ozone-season
and annual NOX emissions.\63\ The EPA believes this
information indicates that if Texas EGUs had been modeled as subject to
CSAPR requirements for ozone-season NOX but not annual
NOX emissions, the projected NOX emissions would
likely have been at most a few thousand tons higher than the emissions
already modeled in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario. An increase of
2,600 tons--that is, the full difference between the projected annual
NOX emissions from Texas EGUs under the CSAPR + BART-
elsewhere scenario and a case with no CSAPR (or BART) NOX
requirements at all--would represent approximately two percent of the
total annual NOX emissions from Texas EGUs and less than two
tenths of one percent of the total annual NOX emissions from
EGUs in all modeled states in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario.\64\
Consistent with the sensitivity analysis supporting the 2012 analytic
demonstration that showed the dominance of sulfate impacts on
visibility (especially in the South), small increases in Texas
NOX emissions are expected to have a negligible impact on
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. The EPA believes that
this relatively small increase in NOX emissions in the CSAPR
+ BART-elsewhere case would have been too small to cause any change in
the results of either prong of the two-pronged CSAPR-Better-than-BART
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See the 2011 CSAPR/BART Technical Support Document, supra
note 46, at table 2-5. The projected amounts of annual
NOX emissions from Texas EGUs are 142,100 tons in the
base case scenario and 139,500 tons in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere
scenario. The difference between these amounts is 2,600 tons.
    \64\ The quotient of 2,600 divided by 139,500 is 1.9%. The total
projected amount of annual NOX emissions from all states
in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario is 1,755,900 tons. See supra
note 56. The quotient of 2,600 divided by 1,755,900 is 0.15%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, if the information regarding the remanded CSAPR Phase 2
SO2 budget for Texas and the consequent proposed withdrawal
of FIP requirements for Texas EGUs had been available at the time of
the 2012 CSAPR-Better-than-BART analytic demonstration, the EPA
believes that the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere scenario likely would have
reflected SO2 emissions from Texas EGUs that would have been
127,300 or more tons per year lower than the emissions that were used
instead, and likely would have reflected annual NOX
emissions from Texas EGUs that would have been at most a few thousand
tons per year higher than the emissions that were used instead. Given
the greater importance of SO2 emissions relative to
NOX emissions in the 2012 analytic comparison, as noted
above, and given that emissions would not have changed in the
Nationwide BART or base case scenarios, it is a logical conclusion that
the modeled visibility improvement in the CSAPR + BART-elsewhere
scenario would have been even larger relative to the other scenarios
than what was modeled in the 2012 analytic demonstration as reflected
in the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule. There is therefore no need to do
any new modeling or more complicated sensitivity analysis. The lower
SO2 emissions in Texas would clearly have led to more
visibility improvement on the best and worst visibility days in the
nearby Class I areas.\65\ Since the ``original'' CSAPR + BART-elsewhere
scenario passed both prongs of the better-than-BART test (compared to
the

Nationwide BART scenario and the base case scenario), a modified CSAPR
+ BART-elsewhere scenario without Texas in the CSAPR region would
without question also have passed both prongs of the better-than-BART
test. In fact, if the modeling analysis had reflected the withdrawal of
FIP provisions for Texas EGUs proposed in this action, the EPA expects
that CSAPR implementation would have passed the better-than-BART test
even more easily, again supporting the use of CSAPR implementation as a
BART alternative for all states whose EGUs participate in the CSAPR
trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ As documented in the 2012 CSAPR/BART sensitivity analysis
memo, supra note 53, sulfate is the main constituent contributing to
visibility impairment at the Class I areas affected by Texas'
emissions, making Texas' SO2 emissions the dominant
contributor to visibility impairment in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on this discussion and the sensitivity
analysis showing that the 2012 analytic demonstration supporting the
conclusion that CSAPR participation qualifies as a BART alternative
would not be adversely affected by modifying the assumptions to reflect
the actions that have been or are expected to be taken in response to
the D.C. Circuit's remand of CSAPR Phase 2 budgets, including the
proposed withdrawal of FIP provisions requiring Texas EGUs to
participate in the CSAPR SO2 and annual NOX
trading programs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0667. The withdrawal of the
FIP provisions proposed in this action will eliminate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for Texas sources under the
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program and the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program. However, this action will cause
no material change in information collection burden related to
NOX because all of the sources will continue to be subject
to very similar NOx monitoring and reporting requirements under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program and/or the
Acid Rain Program. Further, for most of the sources, this action will
also cause no change in information collection burden related to
SO2 because the same SO2 monitoring and reporting
requirements will continue to apply to the sources under the Acid Rain
Program. Approximately eight Texas sources currently reporting under
CSAPR include units that are not subject to the Acid Rain Program and
therefore will no longer be required to continuously monitor and report
SO2 emissions to the EPA, but these units combust only
gaseous or liquid fuels and currently use default values or periodic
sampling instead of continuous emission monitoring systems to measure
SO2 concentrations. Consequently, the EPA expects this
action to cause little change in information collection burden related
to SO2.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. 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 withdraws
existing regulatory requirements for some entities and does not impose
new requirements on any entity. We have therefore concluded that this
action will either relieve or have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 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. This action simply eliminates certain federal
regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

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. This
action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that
the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

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, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action simply
eliminates certain federal regulatory requirements that the D.C.
Circuit has held invalid. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal
officials while developing CSAPR. A summary of that consultation is
provided in the preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48346 (August 8,
2011).

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it simply eliminates certain federal
regulatory requirements that the D.C. Circuit has held invalid.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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 13211.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety
standard. This action simply eliminates certain federal regulatory
requirements that the

D.C. Circuit has held invalid. Consistent with Executive Order 12898
and the EPA's environmental justice policies, the EPA considered
effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and indigenous
peoples while developing CSAPR. The process and results of that
consideration are described in the preamble for CSAPR, 76 FR 48208,
48347-52 (August 8, 2011).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: November 3, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 52.38 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), paragraph
(a)(4) introductory text, paragraph (a)(5) introductory text, and
paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.38  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to
emissions of nitrogen oxides?

    (a) * * *
    (2)(i) The provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2015 and each subsequent year: Alabama, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
    (ii) The provisions of subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2015 and 2016 only: Texas.
* * * * *
    (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section may
adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will
approve, regulations revising subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter
as follows and not making any other substantive revisions of that
subpart:
* * * * *
    (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a State listed in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section may
adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will
approve, as correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for
the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(2)(i), and (a)(3) and (4) of this section with regard to sources in
the State (but not sources in any Indian country within the borders of
the State), regulations that are substantively identical to the
provisions of the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program set forth
in Sec. Sec.  97.402 through 97.435 of this chapter, except that the
SIP revision:
* * * * *
    (6) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a
State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the
basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs
(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3) and (4) of this section, the provisions
of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section will no longer apply to sources
in the State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision
is partial or conditional, and will continue to apply to sources in any
Indian country within the borders of the State, provided that if the
CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan was promulgated as a partial rather
than full remedy for an obligation of the State to address interstate
air pollution, the SIP revision likewise will constitute a partial
rather than full remedy for the State's obligation unless provided
otherwise in the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.39 is amended by revising paragraph (c), paragraph (h)
introductory text, paragraph (i) introductory text, and paragraph (j)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.39   What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to
emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2015 and each subsequent year: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas,
Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Carolina.
    (2) The provisions of subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2015 and 2016 only: Texas.
* * * * *
    (h) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, a State listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may adopt
and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve,
regulations revising subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter as
follows and not making any other substantive revisions of that subpart:
* * * * *
    (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, a State listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may adopt
and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as
correcting the deficiency in the SIP that is the basis for the CSAPR
Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (g),
and (h) of this section with regard to sources in the State (but not
sources in any Indian country within the borders of the State),
regulations that are substantively identical to the provisions of the
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program set forth in Sec. Sec.
97.702 through 97.735 of this chapter, except that the SIP revision:
* * * * *
    (j) Following promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a
State's SIP revision as correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the
basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan set forth in paragraphs
(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this section or paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (g),
and (h) of this section, the provisions of paragraph (b) or (c)(1) of
this section, as applicable, will no longer apply to sources in the
State, unless the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision is
partial or conditional, and will continue to apply to sources in any
Indian country within the borders of the State, provided that if the
CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan was promulgated as a partial rather
than full remedy for an obligation of the State to address interstate
air pollution, the SIP revision likewise will constitute a partial
rather than full remedy for the State's obligation unless provided

otherwise in the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision.
* * * * *

Subpart SS--Texas

0
4. Section 52.2283 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2283   Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located
in the State of Texas and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program in subpart AAAAA of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
5. Section 52.2284 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing
and reserving paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2284  Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located
in the State of Texas and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program in subpart DDDDD of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2015 and 2016.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2016-27197 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P