[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48751-48765]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20858]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0595; FRL-9984-19-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU08

Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation Plans
Required Under the NOX SIP Call

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
update the regulations that were originally promulgated in 1998 to
implement the NOX SIP Call. In place of the current
requirement for states to include provisions in their state
implementation plans (SIPs) under which certain emissions sources must
monitor their mass emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
according to 40 CFR part 75, the proposed amendments would allow states
to include alternate forms of monitoring requirements in their SIPs.
The amendments would also rescind the findings of interstate pollution
transport obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under the NOX SIP Call
that have been stayed by EPA since 2000. Other revisions would remove
additional obsolete provisions and clarify the remaining regulations
but would not substantively alter any current regulatory requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2018. To
request a public hearing, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by October 4, 2018. EPA does not
plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0595, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Additional materials related to this proposed
action, including submitted comments, can be viewed online at
regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0595 or in person
at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room in Washington, DC. Information on
the location and hours of the EPA Docket Center Reading Room is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Lifland, Clean Air Markets
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
202-343-9151; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of contents

I. Overview of the Proposed Action
    A. Summary of Proposed Amendments and Projected Impacts
    B. Potentially Affected Entities
    C. Statutory Authority and Proposed Determinations Concerning
Rulemaking Procedures and Judicial Review
    D. Proposed Effective Date
II. Background
    A. The NOX SIP Call
    B. The NOX Budget Trading Program (NBTP) and Related
Trading Programs
    C. The NOX SIP Call's Contributions to Attainment of
the NAAQS
III. Proposed Amendments to the NOX SIP Call Regulations
    A. Emissions Monitoring Requirements
    B. Good Neighbor Obligations Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    C. Emissions Budget and Emissions Inventory Provisions
    D. Interstate Trading Program Options
    E. Procedural Provisions
    F. Editorial Revisions
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
V. Request for Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Overview of the Proposed Action

    This section provides an overview of the proposed action, including
a summary of the proposed amendments and their projected impacts as
well as information concerning potentially affected entities, statutory
authority, EPA's proposed determinations concerning applicable
rulemaking and judicial review provisions, and the proposed effective
date.
    Section II provides additional background. In section III, EPA
describes the proposed amendments and the supporting rationales.
Section IV discusses the projected impacts of the proposed amendments.
EPA's request for comment is in section V. Section VI addresses reviews
required under various statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Summary of Proposed Amendments and Projected Impacts

    In 1998, EPA promulgated the NOX SIP Call which, as
implemented, required 20 states and the District of Columbia to revise
their SIPs to reduce seasonal NOX emissions contributing to
interstate ozone pollution. Since implementation of emission controls
under the NOX SIP Call began in 2003, the regulations have
required these jurisdictions to include provisions in their SIPs under
which certain large electricity generating units (EGUs) and large non-
EGU boilers and turbines must monitor their seasonal NOX
emissions according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 75. The sources
formerly met these requirements through participation in the
NOX Budget Trading Program (NBTP), which was discontinued
after 2008. Almost all the affected large EGUs currently participate in
the Acid Rain Program or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading
programs, which have comparable monitoring requirements, but few of the
affected large non-EGUs participate in these other programs. Over time,
many of the originally affected large non-EGUs have retired or switched
to cleaner fuels, and newly affected large non-EGUs generally have
lower emission rates, so total NOX emissions from the group
are considerably lower than in the

past. Several NOX SIP Call states have expressed interest in
establishing alternate, potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements
for the remaining large non-EGUs.
    This proposal would revise the existing NOX SIP Call
regulations to allow states to amend their SIPs to establish emissions
monitoring requirements for NOX SIP Call purposes other than
Part 75 monitoring requirements. Ultimately, such alternate monitoring
requirements could be made available to approximately 310 units--mostly
large non-EGUs--through states' revisions to their SIPs. States, not
EPA, would decide whether to revise the monitoring requirements in
their SIPs, and EPA lacks complete information on the remaining
monitoring requirements that the sources would face, but EPA expects
that at least some states would revise their SIPs, resulting in reduced
monitoring costs for at least some sources. Almost all the large EGUs
would still be required to perform NOX monitoring according
to 40 CFR part 75 under the Acid Rain Program or the CSAPR trading
programs, thereby providing comparable monitoring data for most of the
collective NOX mass emissions from the set of large EGUs and
large non-EGU boilers and turbines affected under the NOX
SIP Call. Further, the monitoring data for recent years show that the
sets of large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines in all
NOX SIP Call states are collectively complying with the
portions of the statewide emissions budgets assigned to these types of
sources by substantial margins. Given these circumstances, EPA believes
that other forms of monitoring for the remaining large EGUs (i.e.,
those not covered under the Acid Rain Program or the CSAPR trading
programs) and large non-EGU boilers and turbines can now provide
sufficient assurance that the NOX SIP Call's required
emissions reductions will continue to be achieved.
    EPA is also proposing to eliminate several obsolete provisions that
no longer have any substantive effect on the regulatory requirements
faced by states or sources. For example, the NOX SIP Call
originally rested independently on parallel findings regarding
interstate ozone pollution that EPA made with respect to two distinct
NAAQS: The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
findings made with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS were stayed by EPA
in 2000 and have since been superseded by findings made in more recent
actions based on updated analyses. In this action, EPA is proposing to
rescind the indefinitely stayed findings made in the NOX SIP
Call with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
remove obsolete provisions concerning options to revise the
NOX SIP Call emissions budgets and baseline emissions
inventories, options to issue credits supplementing the emissions
budgets, and options to comply with the emissions budgets by using the
NBTP or state-developed interstate trading programs. An obsolete
provision concerning SIP submission procedures would also be removed.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to make clarifying amendments to the
remaining NOX SIP Call regulations. Most notably, existing
regulatory text mischaracterizing the incremental emissions reductions
required in states' Phase II SIP submissions as ``Phase II incremental
budget'' amounts and ``portions of'' the final NOX budgets
would be replaced by simpler text referencing the Phase I and final
NOX budgets. The proposed clarifications would not
substantively alter any existing regulatory requirements.
    No substantive amendments are proposed to any existing requirements
of the NOX SIP Call except the existing requirement for SIPs
to include provisions under which large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers
and turbines must monitor their NOX emissions in accordance
with 40 CFR part 75. The emissions reductions achieved by the
NOX SIP Call have been relied on to support numerous final
actions redesignating areas to attainment of a NAAQS, and consistent
with that reliance the emissions reductions must be permanent and
enforceable. To ensure the permanence and enforceability of the
emissions reductions, other existing NOX SIP Call
requirements regarding large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and
turbines, including requirements for SIPs to contain provisions
establishing some form of enforceable seasonal NOX mass
emissions limits for these sources supported by some form of monitoring
requirements, are not affected by the proposed amendments and would
remain in place, as would all of the more broadly applicable
requirements regarding SIPs and the statewide emissions budgets. EPA is
not reopening, and thus is not accepting comment on, any of the
NOX SIP Call provisions other than the ones proposed for
revision. With respect to the NOX SIP Call provisions
proposed for revision other than the provision concerning Part 75
monitoring requirements, EPA is not reopening any of the provisions on
a substantive basis and is accepting comment solely on whether the
provisions proposed for removal as obsolete in fact are obsolete and on
whether the proposed clarifications in fact achieve clarification.
    EPA is not proposing to amend any other regulations under which
some sources affected under the NOX SIP Call may also face
monitoring requirements. Such other regulations include, but are not
limited to, regulations for the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR parts 72
through 78) and the CSAPR trading programs (40 CFR part 97, subparts
AAAAA through EEEEE). EPA is not reopening, and thus is not accepting
comment on, any such other regulations.

B. Potentially Affected Entities

    This proposed action would not apply directly to any emissions
sources but instead would amend existing regulatory requirements
applicable to the SIPs of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. If an affected jurisdiction chooses to revise its SIP in
response to these amendments, sources in the jurisdiction could be
indirectly affected if they are subject to emissions monitoring
requirements for purposes of the NOX SIP Call and are not
independently subject to comparable requirements under another program
such as the Acid Rain Program or a CSAPR trading program. Generally,
the types of sources that could be affected are fossil fuel-fired
boilers and stationary combustion turbines with heat input capacities
over 250 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hr) or serving
electricity generators with capacities over 25 megawatts (MW). Sources
meeting these criteria operate in a variety of industries, including
but not limited to the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Examples of industries with
           NAICS * code                 potentially affected sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
221112............................  Fossil fuel-fired electric power
                                     generation.
3112..............................  Grain and oilseed milling.
3221..............................  Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills.
3241..............................  Petroleum and coal products
                                     manufacturing.
3251..............................  Basic chemical manufacturing.
3311..............................  Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy
                                     manufacturing.
6113..............................  Colleges, universities, and
                                     professional schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industry Classification System.

C. Statutory Authority and Proposed Determinations Concerning
Rulemaking Procedures and Judicial Review

    Statutory authority for the amendments proposed in this action is
provided by Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110 and 301, 42 U.S.C. 7410
and 7601, which also provided statutory authority for issuance of the
existing NOX SIP Call regulations that EPA is proposing to
amend.
    CAA section 307(d), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d), contains rulemaking and
judicial review provisions that apply to certain EPA actions under the
CAA including, under section 307(d)(1)(V), ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine.'' In accordance with section 307(d)(1)(V),
the Administrator proposes to determine that the provisions of section
307(d) apply to any final action taken on this proposal. EPA has
complied with the procedural requirements of section 307(d) during the
course of this rulemaking.
    CAA section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), indicates which United
States Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions of review of final
actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) if (i) the Agency action
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final
action taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) the action is locally or
regionally applicable, but ``such action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a
determination.'' EPA proposes to find that any final action taken on
this proposal is ``nationally applicable'' or, in the alternative, is
based on a determination of ``nationwide scope and effect'' within the
meaning of section 307(b)(1). The proposed rule would amend existing
regulations that apply to 20 states and the District of Columbia, and
thus the proposed rule would apply to the same jurisdictions. The
existing regulations that would be amended were promulgated to address
interstate transport of air pollution across the eastern half of the
nation and have been relied on as a basis for actions redesignating
areas in at least 20 states to attainment with one or more NAAQS.
Previous final actions promulgating and amending the existing
regulations were nationally applicable and reviewed in the D.C.
Circuit,\1\ and courts have found other similar actions to be
nationally applicable.\2\ Finally, the jurisdictions to which the
proposed rule would apply are located in nine federal judicial
circuits, and in the report on the 1977 CAA Amendments that revised
section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope or effect'' would
be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a
single judicial circuit.\3\ For these reasons, the Administrator
proposes to determine that any final action related to the proposed
rule is nationally applicable or, in the alternative, is based on a
determination of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section
307(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit transferred
a challenge to one of these actions to the D.C. Circuit after
determining that the action was nationally applicable. See W. Va.
Chamber of Commerce v. Browner, No. 98-1013, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS
30621, at *24 (4th Cir. Dec. 1, 1998) (finding the NOX
SIP Call to be nationally applicable based on ``the nationwide scope
and interdependent nature of the problem, the large number of
states, spanning most of the country, being regulated, the common
core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the rule, and
the common legal interpretation advanced of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act'').
    \2\ See, e.g., Texas v. EPA, No. 10-60961, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS
5654 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2011) (finding a SIP call to 13 states to be
nationally applicable and thus transferring the case to the D.C.
Circuit in accordance with CAA section 307(b)(1)). Cf. Judgment,
Cedar Falls Utils. v. EPA, No. 16-4504 (8th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)
(transferring a petition to review the CSAPR Update to the D.C.
Circuit).
    \3\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 323-24 (1977), reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Effective Date

    If the amendments proposed in this action are finalized, EPA
intends to make them effective immediately upon publication of a final
action in the Federal Register. EPA expects that any final action would
not be subject to requirements specifying a minimum period between
publication and effectiveness under either Congressional Review Act
(CRA) section 801(a)(3), 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3), or Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) section 553(d), 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
    CRA section 801(a)(3) generally prohibits a ``major rule'' from
taking effect earlier than 60 days after the rule is published in the
Federal Register. Generally, under CRA section 804(2), 5 U.S.C. 804(2),
a major rule is a rule that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, (2) major cost or price increases,
or (3) other significant adverse economic effects. EPA expects that any
final rule issued based on this proposal would not be a major rule for
CRA purposes.
    As discussed in section I.C., EPA is proposing to issue the
amendments under CAA section 307(d). This provision does not include
requirements governing the effective date of a rule promulgated under
it and, accordingly, EPA has discretion in establishing the effective
date. While APA section 553(d) generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the
Federal Register, CAA section 307(d)(1) clarifies that ``[t]he
provisions of [APA] section 553 . . . shall not, except as expressly
provided in this section, apply to actions to which this subsection
applies.'' Thus, APA section 553(d) would not apply to the amendments.
Nevertheless, in proposing to make any final action taken on this
proposal effective immediately upon publication, EPA has considered the
purposes underlying APA section 553(d). The primary purpose of the
prescribed 30-day waiting period is to give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before a final
rule takes effect. The amendments proposed in this action would not
impose any new regulatory requirements and therefore would not
necessitate time for affected sources to adjust their behavior or
otherwise prepare for implementation. Further, APA section 553(d)
expressly allows an effective date earlier than 30 days after
publication for a rule that ``grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction.'' This proposal would relieve an existing
restriction and allow EPA to approve SIPs with more flexible monitoring
requirements, which in turn could lead to reduced monitoring costs for
certain sources. Consequently, making the amendments effective
immediately upon publication of a final action would be consistent with
the purposes of APA section 553(d).

II. Background

    This section provides background on the NOX SIP Call,
the NOX Budget Trading Program (NBTP) and its successor
trading programs, and EPA's and states' reliance on the resulting
emissions reductions to support redesignations of areas to attainment
of the NAAQS.

A. The NOX SIP Call

    Under the CAA, EPA establishes and periodically revises NAAQS for
certain pollutants, including ground-level ozone, while states have
primary responsibility for attaining the NAAQS through the adoption of
control measures in their SIPs. Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), often called the ``good neighbor
provision,'' each state is required to include provisions in its SIP
prohibiting emissions that ``will . . .

contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].'' In 1998,
EPA issued the NOX SIP Call (the Rule) identifying good
neighbor obligations with respect to the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and calling for SIP revisions to address
those obligations.\4\ As originally promulgated and codified at 40 CFR
51.121 and 51.122, the Rule required 22 states \5\ and the District of
Columbia \6\ to revise their SIPs to reduce their sources' emissions of
NOX, an ozone precursor, during the May-September ``ozone
season.'' The original deadline for implementation of controls to
accomplish the required emissions reductions was May 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for
Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone (NOX SIP
Call), 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998).
    \5\ In addition to the jurisdictions currently subject to
requirements under the NOX SIP Call as amended, the Rule
as originally issued also applied to Georgia and Wisconsin.
    \6\ For simplicity, this document often refers to all the
jurisdictions with obligations under the CAA and the NOX
SIP Call, including the District of Columbia, as ``states.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NOX SIP Call rulemaking, EPA developed and
applied a 4-step framework that has since formed the basis for all
subsequent EPA rulemakings to address the good neighbor provision. The
four steps are to: (1) Identify areas that are projected to have
problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identify upwind states
whose emissions warrant further analysis because of linkages to
problematic air quality in downwind areas in other states; (3)
determine the amounts of emissions that linked upwind states must
eliminate (if any) to meet their good neighbor obligations, considering
both air quality and cost factors; and (4) implement the required
emissions reductions through enforceable control measures. For purposes
of this proposed action, only the third and fourth of these four
steps--determination of the amounts of required emissions reductions
and implementation of the required reductions--merit discussion.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The following paragraphs summarize relevant background
information from the more detailed description of the rulemaking
process in the preamble for the final Rule at 63 FR 57405-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on analysis of both air quality and cost factors, as noted
above, EPA determined in the NOX SIP Call rulemaking that
the amount of each state's required emissions reduction under the Rule
should be the portion of the state's projected 2007 emissions inventory
\8\ that could be eliminated through the application of highly cost-
effective controls. The 2007 emissions inventories spanned the full
range of economic sectors, including EGU and non-EGU stationary point
sources, smaller stationary (area) sources, and highway and nonroad
mobile sources. After evaluating potential emission control
opportunities across both stationary and mobile sectors, EPA identified
sufficiently cost-effective control opportunities and quantified the
resulting potential emissions reductions for four categories of fossil
fuel-fired combustion devices: EGU boilers and turbines serving
electricity generators with capacity ratings greater than 25 MW (large
EGUs); non-EGU boilers and turbines with heat input ratings greater
than 250 mmBtu/hr (large non-EGU boilers and turbines); stationary
internal combustion engines; and cement kilns. In aggregate across all
covered states, large EGUs accounted for approximately 83 percent of
the total quantified potential emissions reductions, and the other
three categories collectively accounted for approximately 17
percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NOX SIP Call rulemaking made extensive use of
2007 emissions inventory information and air quality modeling
results developed through the 1995-1997 Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG) process, a collaborative effort of states, industry,
environmental organizations, and EPA to analyze the causes of
transported ozone pollution throughout the eastern United States and
assess possible mitigation strategies.
    \9\ Out of the Rule's total quantified potential emissions
reductions of 1,156,638 tons, EPA quantified potential emissions
reductions from EGUs and non-EGUs of 957,975 tons and 198,663 tons,
respectively. See 63 FR at 57434, 57436, and 57440 (differences
between ``Base'' and ``Budget'' totals in Tables III-5, III-7, and
III-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement the Rule's emissions reduction requirements, EPA
promulgated a ``budget'' for the statewide seasonal NOX
emissions from each covered state. Each state's emissions budget was
calculated as the state's projected 2007 emissions inventory minus the
state's required emissions reduction. Notwithstanding EPA's own
conclusions concerning the types of sources for which highly cost-
effective controls were available, the Rule did not mandate that states
follow any particular approach for achieving their required emissions
reductions. Instead, states retained wide discretion regarding which
sources in their states to control and what control measures to employ.
Each state was simply required to demonstrate that whatever control
measures it chose to include in its SIP revision would be sufficient to
ensure that projected 2007 statewide seasonal NOX emissions
from its sources would not exceed its emissions budget.
    Besides the general flexibility given to states regarding the
choices of sources and control measures, the NOX SIP Call
included additional provisions designed to increase compliance
flexibility. First, the Rule established a compliance supplement pool
of additional credits beyond the emissions budgets. States could issue
credits from the pool according to criteria established in the Rule,
and sources could use the credits to demonstrate compliance during the
first two years in which emission controls were required. Second, the
Rule allowed states to adopt interstate emission allowance trading
programs as control measures to accomplish some or all of the required
emissions reductions. EPA also provided a model rule for an EPA-
administered interstate trading program--the NBTP--that would meet all
the Rule's SIP approval criteria for a trading program for large EGUs
and large non-EGU boilers and turbines.
    While generally oriented toward providing states and sources with
compliance flexibility, the NOX SIP Call also included two
conditional provisions that would become mandatory SIP requirements for
large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines if states chose to
include any emission control measures for these types of sources in
their SIP revisions. First, under Sec.  51.121(f)(2), any control
measures imposed on these types of sources would be required to include
enforceable limits on the sources' seasonal NOX mass
emissions. These limits could take several forms, including either
limits on individual sources or collective limits on the group of all
such sources in a state. Second, under Sec.  51.121(i)(4), these
sources would be required to monitor and report their seasonal
NOX mass emissions according to the provisions of 40 CFR
part 75.\10\ One way a state could meet these two SIP requirements was
to adopt the NBTP, because the NBTP included provisions addressing both
requirements and was expressly designed as a potential control measure
for these types of sources. However, it is important to recognize that
the mandatory SIP requirements for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers
and turbines, once triggered by a state's choice to adopt any control
measures for these types of sources into its SIP, exist independently
of the NBTP. The mandatory SIP requirements therefore

were not eliminated by the later discontinuation of the NBTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For brevity, this notice generally refers to the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
75 as ``Part 75 monitoring requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following initial promulgation, EPA amended the NOX SIP
Call several times. One amendment in 2000 was prompted by a D.C.
Circuit opinion concerning the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\11\ The court's
decision created uncertainty concerning EPA's authority to implement
this NAAQS, and in response EPA indefinitely stayed the findings of
good neighbor obligations under this NAAQS as a basis for the Rule
pending resolution of the uncertainty.\12\ Because all the Rule's
requirements rested independently on the findings of good neighbor
obligations under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the stay--which remains
in place--had no consequence for the Rule's implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Am. Trucking Assns. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999),
affirmed in part and reversed in part sub nom. Whitman v. Am.
Trucking Assns., 531 U.S. 457 (2001).
    \12\ 65 FR 56245 (Sept. 18, 2000) (codified at 40 CFR
51.121(q)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 1998 and 2004, EPA made several other amendments to reflect
updated information and to respond to other D.C. Circuit opinions and
orders concerning the NOX SIP Call itself.\13\ Collectively,
these amendments (1) eliminated emissions reduction requirements for
Wisconsin and portions of Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, and Missouri; (2)
modified definitions used to classify certain units as EGUs or non-
EGUs; (3) revised the projected 2007 emissions inventories and the
emissions budgets; (4) accommodated court-imposed deferrals of the
Rule's original deadlines for SIP submissions and implementation of
emission controls; and (5) divided the Rule's overall emissions
reduction requirements into two phases, with implementation of the
first and second phases of reductions required by May 31, 2004 and May
1, 2007, respectively.\14\ In an additional pair of amendments in 2005
and 2008, EPA first stayed and then eliminated emissions reduction
requirements for the remaining portion of Georgia.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Most judicial challenges to the Rule and its amendments
were denied, but the court vacated or remanded with respect to
certain issues in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and
Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
    \14\ For a discussion of all amendments to the NOX
SIP Call through 2004, see 69 FR 21604 (Apr. 21, 2004).
    \15\ For a discussion of the Georgia-related amendments, see 73
FR 21528 (Apr. 22, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As amended, the NOX SIP Call applies to Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; portions of
Alabama, Michigan, and Missouri; and the District of Columbia. All
these jurisdictions except Missouri adopted the NBTP for large EGUs and
large non-EGU boilers and turbines as part of their Phase I SIP
submissions. Missouri, which was not required to make a Phase I SIP
submission, adopted the NBTP for the same types of sources as part of
its Phase II SIP submission. By adopting control measures applicable to
large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines into their SIPs, all
the affected jurisdictions triggered obligations for their SIPs to
include enforceable mass emissions limits and Part 75 monitoring
requirements for these types of sources. As noted above, these
requirements remain in effect despite the later discontinuation of the
NBTP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Some states expanded NBTP applicability under their SIPs to
include additional sources, primarily smaller EGUs. Unlike large
EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines, the additional sources
are not subject to the NOX SIP Call's ongoing obligation
under Sec.  51.121(i)(4) for SIPs to include part 75 monitoring
requirements and therefore would not be affected by the amendments
proposed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The NOX Budget Trading Program (NBTP) and Related Trading Programs

    As described in section II.A., EPA developed the NBTP as a
potential control measure for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and
turbines that states could adopt into their SIPs to achieve some or all
of the emissions reductions required under the NOX SIP Call,
and all covered states chose to adopt the program into their SIPs as a
control measure for these types of sources. To provide further context
for the amendments to the NOX SIP Call proposed in this
action, this section briefly discusses the relationships and relevant
differences between the NBTP and several other interstate emission
allowance trading programs that have preceded or followed it.
    The NBTP was implemented starting in 2003, succeeding a similar but
geographically narrower interstate trading program called the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) NOX Budget Program. The OTC
trading program, which was developed by several northeastern states
with EPA assistance, operated from 1999 through 2002. Like the NBTP, it
applied to both large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines.
After issuance of the NOX SIP Call, the northeastern states
elected to replace the OTC trading program with the NBTP starting in
2003, approximately one year before the NOX SIP Call's
amended deadline for implementation of Phase I emission controls. In
2004, the NBTP expanded to include sources in most of the remaining
NOX SIP Call states. Missouri sources joined the NBTP in
2007, and EPA continued to administer the NBTP through the 2008 ozone
season.
    Since the 2008 ozone season, EPA has replaced the NBTP with a
series of three similar interstate emission allowance trading programs
designed to address eastern states' good neighbor obligations with
respect to ozone NAAQS more recent than the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
that underlies the NOX SIP Call as amended. The NBTP's three
successor seasonal NOX trading programs were established
under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),\17\ which was remanded by
the D.C. Circuit; \18\ the original CSAPR,\19\ which replaced CAIR; and
most recently the CSAPR Update.\20\ The seasonal NOX trading
programs established under CAIR and the original CSAPR were both
designed to address the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,\21\ while the trading
program established under the CSAPR Update was designed to address the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAIR seasonal NOX trading
program operated from 2009 through 2014, the original CSAPR seasonal
NOX trading program started operating in 2015,\22\ and the
CSAPR Update trading program started operating in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (SIP requirements); 71 FR 25328
(Apr. 28, 2006) (parallel federal implementation plan requirements).
    \18\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
modified on rehearing, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \19\ 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011); see also 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27,
2011) (adding seasonal NOX emissions reduction
requirements for sources in five states), 79 FR 71663 (Dec. 3, 2014)
(tolling implementation dates by three years).
    \20\ 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Consolidated challenges to the
CSAPR Update are pending in Wisconsin v. EPA, No. 16-1406 (D.C. Cir.
appeal docketed Nov. 23, 2016).
    \21\ CAIR also established trading programs for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and annual NOX emissions designed to
address the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. These additional trading programs were replaced under the
original CSAPR by trading programs for SO2 and annual
NOX emissions established to address both the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \22\ The original CSAPR seasonal NOX trading program
remains in effect for sources in Georgia but after 2016 has not
applied to sources in any state subject to the NOX SIP
Call as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of this proposed action, the most important difference
between the NBTP and its successor seasonal NOX trading
programs concerns the types of sources participating in the various
programs. As discussed above, the NBTP was designed to cover both large
EGUs and large non-EGU boilers

and turbines. In contrast, by default the three successor trading
programs have covered only units considered EGUs under those programs,
which generally means all units that would be classified as
NOX SIP Call large EGUs as well as a small subset of the
units that would be classified as NOX SIP Call large non-EGU
boilers and turbines.\23\ Under the CAIR seasonal NOX
trading program, most NOX SIP Call states exercised an
option to expand program applicability to include all their
NOX SIP Call large non-EGU boilers and turbines,\24\ but the
option was eliminated under the original CSAPR seasonal NOX
trading program and no state has exercised the restored option made
available under the CSAPR Update trading program.\25\ Consequently, at
present most NOX SIP Call large non-EGU boilers and turbines
do not participate in a successor trading program to the NBTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For example, a unit qualifying as exempt from the Acid Rain
Program under the provision for cogeneration units at 40 CFR
72.6(b)(4) could be covered under the CAIR, original CSAPR, and
CSAPR Update trading programs as an EGU. Under the NOX
SIP Call as amended, such a unit would be classified as a large non-
EGU boiler or turbine.
    \24\ See 40 CFR 51.123(aa)(2)(i) and (ee)(1).
    \25\ See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(ii) and (b)(9)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second relevant difference between the NBTP and its successor
trading programs concerns the various programs' geographic areas of
coverage. In each successive rulemaking to address states' good
neighbor obligations, even in instances where the rulemakings concerned
the same ozone NAAQS, other factors have changed, including the
available data on air quality, emissions inventories, and potential
emission control opportunities. Given different inputs to the analytic
processes for the successive rulemakings, EPA's determinations
regarding which upwind states must reduce emissions to address good
neighbor obligations have differed as well. At present, EGUs in
fourteen NOX SIP Call states participate in the CSAPR Update
trading program.\26\ EGUs in the remaining seven NOX SIP
Call jurisdictions do not currently participate in a successor trading
program to the NBTP, although most such units are subject to other EPA
programs with comparable part 75 monitoring requirements.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The CSAPR Update applies to EGUs in the NOX SIP
Call states of Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia as well as eight additional
states that were not subject to the NOX SIP Call as
amended.
    \27\ EGUs in the NOX SIP Call jurisdictions of
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, and the District of Columbia are not subject to the
CSAPR Update. Most NOX SIP Call EGUs in these
jurisdictions are subject to the Acid Rain Program, and all
NOX SIP Call EGUs in North Carolina and South Carolina
participate in trading programs for SO2 and annual
NOX emissions established under the original CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CAIR rulemaking, EPA amended the NOX SIP Call
regulations both to provide that the NBTP would be discontinued
coincident with implementation of the CAIR seasonal NOX
trading program and to require states to adopt new control measures
into their SIPs replacing the portions of their NOX SIP Call
emissions reduction requirements that had been met through the
NBTP.\28\ As discussed above, notwithstanding the discontinuation of
the NBTP, the NOX SIP Call's requirements for enforceable
mass emissions limits and Part 75 monitoring continue to apply to large
EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines in all affected states.
Since the CAIR rulemaking, EPA has worked with NOX SIP Call
states individually to assist them in revising their SIPs to meet these
ongoing NOX SIP Call requirements, whether through use of
the NBTP's successor trading programs (to the extent those options have
been available) or through other replacement control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 40 CFR 51.121(r); see also 40 CFR 51.123(bb) and
52.38(b)(10)(ii) (authorizing use of CAIR and CSAPR Update seasonal
NOX trading programs as NBTP replacement control measures
for large non-EGU boilers and turbines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The NOX SIP Call's Contributions to Attainment of the NAAQS

    As described in section II.B., implementation of the NBTP began in
2003 for the sources in some affected states and in 2004 for the
sources in most remaining affected states, and the program operated
through the 2008 ozone season. Between 2000 and 2004, seasonal
NOX emissions from all sources participating in the NBTP
\29\ fell from 1,256,237 tons to 609,029 tons, a decrease of over 50%,
and by 2008, seasonal NOX emissions from these sources
declined further to 481,420 tons.\30\ By comparison, the portions of
the statewide seasonal NOX emissions budgets assigned to
sources participating in the NBTP in all NOX SIP Call
states--as indicated by the numbers of emission allowances available
for allocation for the 2008 ozone season pursuant to states' SIPs--sum
to 528,453 tons.\31\ EPA believes that the NOX SIP Call as
implemented through the NBTP was an important driver of these emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Small portions of these totals represent emissions and
budget amounts for sources that participated in the NBTP pursuant to
requirements or opt-in provisions in certain states' SIPs but that
are not large EGUs or large non-EGU boilers or turbines subject to
Sec.  51.121(i)(4). 2017 emissions for these types of sources are
shown separately in Table 1 in section III.A. of this notice.
    \30\ See The NOX Budget Trading Program: 2008
Emission, Compliance, and Market Analyses (July 2009) at 14,
available in the docket for this proposed action.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E),
redesignation of an area to attainment of a NAAQS requires a
determination that the improvement in air quality is due to ``permanent
and enforceable'' emissions reductions. At least 140 EPA final actions
redesignating areas in 20 states to attainment with an ozone NAAQS or a
PM2.5 NAAQS (because NOX is a precursor to
PM2.5 as well as ozone) have relied in part on the Rule's
emissions reductions.\32\ This includes actions redesignating areas to
attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
response to legal challenges, multiple courts of appeals have held that
the Rule's emissions reductions qualify as permanent and enforceable
and therefore may be used to support redesignation actions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Redesignation Actions Relying on NOX SIP
Call Emissions Reductions (August 2018), available in the docket for
this proposed action.
    \33\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383, 397-99 (7th Cir. 2014)
(holding that NOX SIP Call emissions reductions may be
relied on as permanent and enforceable for purposes of
redesignations); Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656, 665-68 (6th Cir.
2015) (same, but vacating redesignations on other grounds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reinforced the permanence and enforceability of the Rule's
emissions reductions by expressly requiring in the implementation rules
for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS that, first, the
NOX SIP Call in general and states' emissions budgets in
particular will continue to apply after revocation of the previous
ozone NAAQS and, second, any modifications to control requirements
approved into a SIP pursuant to the Rule are subject to anti-
backsliding requirements under CAA section 110(l), 42 U.S.C.
7410(l).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 40 CFR 51.905(f) and 51.1105(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, to avoid any possible argument that the proposed
changes would result in a lessening of permanence and enforceability
that could threaten continued reliance on the NOX SIP Call's
emissions reductions to support other actions, EPA is expressly not
proposing to substantively amend--and is not reopening for substantive
comment--the Rule's key provisions supporting these attributes. These
key provisions include the statewide emissions budgets and general
enforceability and monitoring

requirements as well as the requirements for enforceable limits on
seasonal NOX mass emissions from large EGUs and large non-
EGU boilers and turbines. As discussed in section III.A., EPA believes
that under current circumstances, the proposed amendment to allow
states to establish alternate monitoring requirements for large EGUs
and large non-EGU boilers and turbines does not undermine assurance
that the Rule's required emissions reductions will continue to be
achieved and therefore does not pose a risk to the permanence and
enforceability of the emissions reductions.

III. Proposed Amendments to the NOX SIP Call Regulations

    This section describes the amendments being proposed as well as the
rationales. In section III.A., EPA discusses a proposed amendment to
allow states to revise their SIPs to establish monitoring requirements
for large non-EGU boilers and turbines (and some large EGUs not subject
to the Acid Rain Program or any CSAPR trading programs) other than Part
75 monitoring requirements. This is the only amendment proposed in this
action that would have a substantive impact on existing regulatory
requirements.
    Section III.B. discusses a proposed amendment that would rescind
the findings of good neighbor obligations with regard to the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS that originally constituted a second basis for the
NOX SIP Call. These findings have been subject to an
indefinite stay by EPA since 2000, and all the NOX SIP
Call's requirements as implemented rest independently on findings of
good neighbor obligations with regard to the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
that would remain in place. The proposed rescission thus would have no
substantive effect on the regulatory obligations faced either by states
or by sources subject to the states' SIPs.
    Sections III.C., III.D., III.E., and III.F. discuss additional
proposed amendments that would remove obsolete provisions or clarify
the remaining NOX SIP Call regulations without substantively
altering any existing regulatory requirements. Section III.C. addresses
provisions relating to emissions budgets and emissions inventories,
section III.D. addresses provisions relating to interstate emission
allowance trading program options, and section III.E. addresses
procedural provisions. Section III.F. identifies the locations of minor
editorial revisions not covered in the other sections.

A. Emissions Monitoring Requirements

    Under Sec.  51.121(i)(4) of the existing NOX SIP Call
regulations, where a state's SIP revision contains control measures for
large EGUs or large non-EGU boilers and turbines, the SIP must also
require part 75 monitoring for these types of sources. As discussed in
section II.A., all NOX SIP Call states triggered this
requirement by including control measures in their SIPs for these types
of sources, and the requirement remains in effect despite the
discontinuation of the NBTP after the 2008 ozone season. In this
action, for the reasons discussed below, EPA proposes to amend the
NOX SIP Call provision at Sec.  51.121(i)(4) to make the
inclusion of part 75 monitoring requirements for these sources in SIPs
optional rather than mandatory for NOX SIP Call purposes.
The SIPs would still need to include some form of emissions monitoring
requirements for these types of sources, consistent with the Rule's
general enforceability and monitoring requirements at Sec.
51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1), respectively, but states would no longer be
required to satisfy these general Rule requirements specifically
through the adoption of part 75 monitoring requirements.\35\
Finalization of this proposed amendment would not in itself eliminate
part 75 monitoring requirements for any sources but would enable EPA to
approve SIP submittals replacing these requirements with other forms of
monitoring requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The proposed revision would not authorize states to create
exceptions to any part 75 monitoring requirements that might apply
to a source under a different legal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA originally established the condition that SIPs must include
part 75 monitoring requirements based on determinations that, first, a
requirement for mass emissions limits for large EGUs and large non-EGU
boilers and turbines was feasible and provided the greatest assurance
that the NOX SIP Call's required emissions reductions would
be achieved, and second, part 75 monitoring was a feasible and cost-
effective way to ensure compliance with the mass emissions limits for
these sources.\36\ (Part 75 monitoring requirements were also
established independently as an essential element of the now-
discontinued NBTP, which like EPA's other emission allowance trading
programs could function only with timely reporting of consistent,
quality-assured mass emissions data by all participating units.) As
noted in section II.C., to ensure that the NOX SIP Call's
emissions reductions can continue to be relied on as permanent and
enforceable for purposes of other actions, EPA is not proposing to
amend the Rule's existing requirements regarding enforceable mass
emissions limits for these sources. However, EPA believes that under
current circumstances, allowing states to establish alternate
monitoring requirements for large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and
turbines would not pose a risk to the permanence and enforceability of
the Rule's emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 63 FR 57356, 57451-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first relevant current circumstance is the substantial margins
by which all NOX SIP Call states are now complying with the
portions of their statewide emissions budgets assigned to large EGUs
and large non-EGU boilers and turbines. As shown in Table 1, in 2017,
seasonal NOX emissions from sources that would have been
subject to the NBTP across the region covered by the NOX SIP
Call were approximately 200,000 tons, which is less than 40% of the sum
of the relevant portions of the statewide final NOX budgets.
Table 1 also shows that no state's emissions exceeded 71% of the
relevant portion of its budget.\37\ These comparisons demonstrate that
the Rule's required emissions reductions would continue to be achieved
even with substantial increases in emissions from current levels. EPA
views the possibility of such large increases as remote because of
requirements under other state and federal environmental programs \38\
and changes to the fleet of affected sources since 2008.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 2017 emissions from Missouri sources were just over 70% of
the relevant portion of the state's budget.
    \38\ For example, for the 11 states covered in their entirety
under both programs--Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia--EGU emissions budgets under the current CSAPR Update
seasonal NOX trading program range from 17% to 66% of the
portions of the respective states' NOX SIP Call emissions
budgets based on EGU emissions. Compare 40 CFR 97.810(a) (CSAPR
Update budgets) with 65 FR 11222, 11225 (Mar. 2, 2000) (EGU-based
portions of NOX SIP Call budgets).
    \39\ For example, sources responsible for over 40% of 2008
emissions reported under the NBTP have either ceased operation or
switched from coal combustion to gas or oil combustion since 2008.
See Post-2008 Changes to Units Reporting Under the NOX
Budget Trading Program (August 2018), available in the docket for
this proposed action.

                                         Table 1--2017 Emissions and Relevant Emissions Budget Amounts by State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           NOX emissions during the 2017 ozone season (tons) from:
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------    Portion of
                                                                                Other NBTP                                         statewide
                               State                                   NBTP sources    large EGUs and     Other NBTP                        emissions
                                                                     also subject to   large non- EGU  sources subject   Total for all   budget assigned
                                                                      Part 75 under     boilers and       to Part 75      NBTP sources   to NBTP sources
                                                                      other programs      turbines      under NSC SIPs                        (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama (part).....................................................            7,166            1,911                0            9,077           25,497
Connecticut........................................................              380               10               39              430            4,477
Delaware...........................................................              324              511                0              835            5,227
District of Columbia...............................................                0               20                0               20              233
Illinois...........................................................           13,038            1,493                0           14,531           35,557
Indiana............................................................           20,396            1,201              823           22,419           55,729
Kentucky...........................................................           19,978               75                0           20,053           36,109
Maryland...........................................................            2,422              516                0            2,939           15,466
Massachusetts......................................................              734              113               32              879           12,861
Michigan (part)....................................................           14,580              205                0           14,785           31,247
Missouri (part)....................................................            9,486                0                0            9,486           13,459
New Jersey.........................................................            1,646              310                0            1,956           13,022
New York...........................................................            4,062              941              611            5,614           41,385
North Carolina.....................................................           16,352            1,689                0           18,041           34,703
Ohio...............................................................           20,012              993                0           21,005           49,842
Pennsylvania.......................................................           13,616              837                0           14,453           50,843
Rhode Island.......................................................              193                0                0              193              936
South Carolina.....................................................            5,030            1,043                0            6,074           19,678
Tennessee..........................................................            7,785            2,350                0           10,135           31,480
Virginia...........................................................            7,462              589                0            8,051           21,195
West Virginia......................................................           18,187              276                0           18,463           29,507
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................          182,849           15,084            1,505          199,438          528,453
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data sources: Emissions data are from EPA's Air Markets Program Database, https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd. In a few cases where 2017 data are not available,
  the most recent available data are used instead. Budget data are from The NOX Budget Trading Program: 2008 Emission, Compliance, and Market Analyses
  (July 2009) at 14, available in the docket for this proposed action.

    The second relevant current circumstance is that even with the
amendments proposed in this action, Part 75 monitoring requirements
would remain in effect for most NOX SIP Call large EGUs
pursuant to other regulatory requirements, including the Acid Rain
Program and the CSAPR trading programs, and these large EGUs are
responsible for most of the collective emissions of NOX SIP
Call large EGUs and large non-EGU boilers and turbines. Table 1 shows
the portions of the reported seasonal NOX emissions for each
state reported by units that would continue to be subject to Part 75
monitoring requirements even if the amendments proposed in this action
are finalized and all states choose to revise their SIPs.\40\ As
indicated in the table, the sources that would continue to report under
Part 75 account for over 90% of the overall emissions. If the proposed
amendments are finalized and a state chooses to revise its SIP to no
longer require Part 75 monitoring for some sources, then under Sec.
51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1)--which EPA is not proposing to amend--the SIP
would still have to include provisions requiring all large EGUs and
large non-EGU boilers and turbines subject to control measures for
purposes of the NOX SIP Call to submit other forms of
information on their seasonal NOX emissions sufficient to
ensure compliance with the control measures. EPA believes that in the
context of the substantial compliance margins discussed above, and
given the continued availability of Part 75 monitoring data from
sources responsible for most of the relevant emissions, emissions data
from the remaining sources submitted pursuant to other forms of
monitoring requirements can provide sufficient assurance that the
Rule's overall required emissions reductions will continue to be
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Although the Acid Rain Program does not require units to
report NOX mass emissions specifically, NOX
mass emissions can be calculated from other Part 75 data that are
required to be reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Good Neighbor Obligations Under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    As discussed in section II.A., the NOX SIP Call as
originally promulgated rested on findings of good neighbor obligations
for affected states with respect to both the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but following an adverse D.C. Circuit
decision, EPA amended the Rule to indefinitely stay the findings under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In this action, EPA proposes to rescind as
obsolete the stayed findings of good neighbor obligations under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to remove the corresponding NOX
SIP Call regulatory provision at Sec.  51.121(a)(2) along with related
language in other provisions, as further discussed below.
    Since the stay of the NOX SIP Call's findings of good
neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA has
addressed states' good neighbor obligations under this NAAQS in both
the original CSAPR and the CSAPR Update,\41\ superseding the stayed
findings and making it appropriate to rescind them, as proposed here.
First, in the original CSAPR rulemaking, EPA either found no good
neighbor obligation or quantified good neighbor requirements under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for all states originally covered by the
NOX SIP Call (including Georgia, Wisconsin, and the portions
of Alabama, Michigan, and Missouri not covered by the NOX
SIP Call as implemented following amendments), finding for some states
that the

quantified emissions reduction requirements represented a full remedy
for the states' good neighbor obligations and for other states that the
quantified emissions reduction requirements might only partially
address the states' good neighbor obligations.\42\ Then, after the D.C.
Circuit remanded the CSAPR Phase 2 seasonal NOX budgets for
several states,\43\ in the CSAPR Update EPA again evaluated states'
good neighbor obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
determining that the states with remanded CSAPR seasonal NOX
budgets no longer had good neighbor obligations under this NAAQS and
that the remaining states' good neighbor obligations under this NAAQS
were fully addressed by their CSAPR emissions reduction
requirements.\44\ Thus, for each of the states subject to the stayed
findings of good neighbor obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS under the NOX SIP Call, upon further analysis
using more recent data in the CSAPR and CSAPR Update rulemakings, EPA
has determined that the state either has no good neighbor obligation
under this NAAQS or that the state's obligation has been fully
addressed through the state's CSAPR seasonal NOX emissions
reduction requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ EPA also addressed states' good neighbor obligations under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in CAIR, but as noted earlier the D.C.
Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA for replacement.
    \42\ See 76 FR 48208, 48210.
    \43\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \44\ See 81 FR 74504, 74523-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the proposed rescission and removal of the
findings discussed above, EPA also proposes to remove the regulatory
provision at Sec.  51.121(q) staying the findings and to remove phrases
in the provisions at Sec.  51.121(c)(1) and (c)(2) referencing the 1979
1-hour ozone NAAQS solely to distinguish that NAAQS from the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. When the findings of good neighbor obligations under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are rescinded and removed from the
regulations, the regulatory provision staying the findings will become
obsolete. Similarly, the phrases distinguishing among multiple NAAQS
will become superfluous once the regulations only contain language
addressing a single NAAQS.

C. Emissions Budget and Emissions Inventory Provisions

    To simplify and clarify the regulations, EPA proposes to update the
NOX SIP Call provisions describing the Rule's Phase I and
Phase II emissions budgets and emissions reduction requirements at
Sec.  51.121(e)(2)(i) and (e)(3) as well as related language in other
provisions. EPA is also proposing to remove obsolete Rule provisions
concerning the budgets and emissions inventories at Sec.  51.121(e)(4),
(e)(5), and (g)(2)(ii) along with a related cross-reference. The
proposed updates and removals would not alter any existing regulatory
requirements.
    As discussed in section II.A., in response to a D.C. Circuit
opinion remanding the Rule with respect to certain issues, EPA divided
the Rule's overall emissions reduction requirements into two phases. As
the first step in this phased approach, in April 2000 EPA sent letters
to officials in each NOX SIP Call state identifying the
portion of the state's overall emissions reduction requirement that was
not implicated by the remanded issues and that should therefore be
implemented in Phase I.\45\ The letters expressed each state's Phase I
emissions reduction requirement in the form of a Phase I emissions
budget that was computed as the state's projected 2007 emissions
inventory minus the required Phase I emissions reduction. Then, to
complete the phased approach, in April 2004 EPA finalized a rulemaking
action determining for each covered state, after reconsideration of all
remanded issues, the final overall emissions reduction requirement, the
corresponding final budget, and the incremental difference between the
Phase I budget and the final budget.\46\ In the 2004 action, the table
of emissions budgets in Sec.  51.121(e)(2)(i) of the NOX SIP
Call regulations was revised to show the amounts of the Rule's final
emissions budgets. However, reflecting the 2004 amendments' focus on
the Phase II requirements, EPA did not include the Phase I budgets in
the regulatory text but instead added a new Sec.  51.121(e)(3) with a
table showing the amounts of the required incremental Phase II
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Summary of EPA's Approach to the NOX SIP
Call in Light of the March 3rd Court Decision (Apr. 11, 2000),
available in the docket for this proposed action.
    \46\ 69 FR 21604, 21628-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the preamble of the 2004 action was clear about the nature of
what was being determined in that action, when incorporating the
amounts of the required incremental Phase II emissions reductions into
the Rule's regulatory text, EPA mischaracterized the amounts as ``Phase
II incremental budget'' amounts and as ``portions of'' the Phase II
final budgets. To eliminate the mischaracterization, EPA proposes in
this action to remove Sec.  51.121(e)(3) and in its place to add a
column showing the amounts of the Phase I budgets to the existing table
in Sec.  51.121(e)(2)(i) that already shows the amounts of the final
budgets. The source for the proposed column of Phase I budget amounts
is the same table in the preamble for the 2004 action that was the
source for both the final budget amounts and the incremental Phase II
emissions reduction amounts.\47\ Relatedly, EPA proposes to revise the
definitions of ``Phase I SIP submission'' and ``Phase II SIP
submission'' at Sec.  51.121(a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii), distinguishing
those terms according to the applicable budgets rather than according
to the treatment of the mischaracterized incremental Phase II emissions
reduction amounts. EPA also proposes to modify the provisions at Sec.
51.121(b)(1) and (b)(1)(i) to refer to ``each SIP revision'' and ``the
applicable budget'', respectively, reflecting the fact that most states
ultimately made separate Phase I and Phase II SIP submissions
addressing the Phase I and final budgets. Collectively, these proposed
revisions would express the Rule's existing final requirements, as well
as the Phase I requirements, more simply and clearly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 69 FR 21604, 21629 (Table 6). In the table, the incremental
emissions reduction amount for each state is shown as the ``Phase II
incremental difference'' between the state's Phase I and final
budgets. Missouri is not included in the table because the state did
not have a Phase I emissions reduction requirement or corresponding
Phase I budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the clarifying updates to the Rule provisions
described above, EPA is proposing to remove as obsolete three other
sets of provisions related to the NOX SIP Call budgets and
projected 2007 emissions inventories: Sec.  51.121(e)(4), which
addresses the compliance supplement pool; Sec.  51.121(e)(5), which
sets out a time-limited process for submitting new data that could be
used to revise the emissions inventories and budgets published as part
of the original Rule; and Sec.  51.121(g)(2)(ii), which as originally
promulgated showed the projected 2007 emissions inventory for each
state by sector. A phrase in the provision at Sec.  51.121(g)(2)(i)
referencing the emissions inventory table would also be removed.
    The Rule's compliance supplement pool provisions at Sec.
51.121(e)(4) allowed each state to issue a certain quantity of credits
beyond the state's budget that sources could use for compliance with
emission control requirements. Credits were required to be issued no
later than the commencement of control measures under the Rule for the
state's sources and could be used for compliance only in the first two
years of control measures. These deadlines have long passed, making the
compliance

supplement pool credits and the provisions governing them obsolete.
    The Rule's provisions at Sec.  51.121(e)(5) allow for the
submission of new data to be used to revise the original emissions
inventories and budgets. The provisions include a February 1999
deadline for such data to be submitted and an April 1999 deadline for
EPA to act on the submitted data. Again, these deadlines have long
passed, making the provisions governing the submission and use of such
new data obsolete.
    As originally promulgated, the NOX SIP Call provision at
Sec.  51.121(g)(2)(ii) presented a table of the projected 2007
emissions inventories for each covered state by sector. The table's
purpose was to serve as an input to states' required demonstrations
that their SIP revisions would achieve sufficient emissions reductions
to meet the Rule's requirements. In 1999 and 2000, EPA updated the
state budgets and emissions inventories and amended the table,\48\ but
when the Rule's budgets were amended for the final time in 2004, the
table was not amended. The information in the table consequently does
not correspond to the NOX SIP Call as implemented, most
notably because it still includes information for Wisconsin and it
includes information for the entire states of Alabama, Michigan, and
Missouri instead of only the portions of the states subject to the Rule
as amended in 2004.\49\ Because the preamble of the 2004 action does
not include all data necessary to update the table, and because the
table's intended purpose has already been fulfilled through EPA's
approval of all required Phase I and Phase II SIP submissions, EPA
considers it appropriate to remove Sec.  51.121(g)(2)(ii) as obsolete
without replacement. Upon removal of the table, the phrase in Sec.
51.121(g)(2)(i) referencing the table will also become obsolete, and
that phrase would therefore be removed as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The current table incorrectly presents the budget data from
the 2000 action, not the ``base'' projected 2007 emissions inventory
data from that action. See 65 FR 11222, 11225-26 (Tables 1 and 2).
    \49\ In 2008, EPA removed information for Georgia but did not
otherwise update the table. 73 FR 21528, 21538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Interstate Trading Program Options

    The NOX SIP Call regulations include two separate sets
of provisions governing the potential use of interstate emission
allowance trading programs as control measures in covered states' SIP
revisions, one set at Sec.  51.121(b)(2) concerning the use of trading
programs in general and one set at Sec.  51.121(p) concerning the use
of the NBTP in particular. In this action, EPA is proposing to remove
as obsolete both sets of provisions governing the potential use of
trading programs and to remove or update references to those provisions
in several other locations in the NOX SIP Call regulations
and in the CSAPR regulations. EPA is also proposing to clarify the
provision at Sec.  51.121(r)(2) setting forth the transition
requirements applicable to states following discontinuation of the
NBTP.
    As discussed in section II.B., EPA discontinued administration of
the NBTP after the 2008 ozone season and has since replaced the
program, for some states and types of sources, with successor seasonal
NOX trading programs. The NBTP's discontinuation has made
the NOX SIP Call provision at Sec.  51.121(p) governing use
of the NBTP as a control measure obsolete, and removal of the obsolete
provision would in turn make cross-references to it obsolete.
Accordingly, EPA would remove certain cross-references to Sec.
51.121(p) from the provisions at Sec.  51.121(r)(1) and Sec.
51.122(c)(1)(ii) and would replace the remaining cross-references to
Sec.  51.121(p) in the NOX SIP Call regulations at Sec.
51.121(r)(1) and (r)(2) and in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR
52.38(b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii)(A)(2), (b)(9)(ii), and (b)(9)(iii)(A)(2)
with cross-references to Sec.  51.121 more broadly.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Note that EPA is not proposing to remove the NBTP model
rule at subparts A through I of 40 CFR part 96 in this action. The
model rule is still incorporated by reference into several states'
SIPs, where it continues to serve as a state-law mechanism
implementing part 75 monitoring requirements for large non-EGU
boilers and turbines even though the NBTP's allowance-related
provisions are no longer being administered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOX SIP Call provisions at Sec.  51.121(b)(2) also
authorize the use of interstate emission allowance trading programs
other than the NBTP as control measures to address states' emissions
reduction requirements under the Rule if the trading programs meet
certain criteria. In theory, after the NBTP was discontinued, states
could have elected to establish one or more alternate interstate
trading programs under Sec.  51.121(b)(2) to replace the NBTP for any
sources not covered by the NBTP's successor trading programs,\51\ but
no states chose to do so. Further, recent emissions of large EGUs and
large non-EGU boilers and turbines in every NOX SIPCall
state have been below the collective caps that the states adopted for
these sources in their Phase I and Phase II SIP revisions, indicating
that there is currently little or no need for a new interstate trading
program to help these sources meet NOX SIP Call
requirements. EPA is unaware of any current state interest in pursuing
this option. Accordingly, EPA considers the provisions at Sec.
51.121(b)(2) functionally obsolete and appropriate for removal. Removal
of Sec.  51.121(b)(2) would make a reference to that provision in Sec.
51.121(b)(1)(i) obsolete, and that reference therefore would also be
removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The option for states to meet their ongoing NOX
SIP Call requirements for large non-EGU boilers and turbines by
expanding applicability under the CSAPR Update trading program is
independently authorized under the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR
52.38(b)(10)(ii) rather than under Sec.  51.121(b)(2). Similarly,
the former option to rely on the CAIR seasonal NOX
trading program for this purpose was independently authorized under
the CAIR regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CAIR rulemaking, besides adding a provision at Sec.
51.121(r)(1) discontinuing the NBTP upon implementation of the CAIR
seasonal NOX trading program, EPA also added a provision at
Sec.  51.121(r)(2) establishing transition requirements for states. The
basic requirement of Sec.  51.121(r)(2) is that each NOX SIP
Call state must adopt replacement control measures into its SIP to
achieve the same portion of the state's required emissions reductions
under the Rule as the state originally projected the NBTP would
achieve. As originally promulgated, the provision included an exception
for instances where a state relied on the CAIR seasonal NOX
trading program for this purpose. Because the original CSAPR seasonal
NOX trading program did not provide an option to expand
applicability to cover former NBTP large non-EGU boilers and turbines,
in the original CSAPR rulemaking EPA amended the exception at Sec.
51.121(r)(2) to indicate that the option to rely on the CAIR seasonal
NOX trading program was expiring and necessarily did not
indicate the existence of a new replacement option. In the CSAPR Update
rulemaking, although a new replacement option was created in the CSAPR
Update regulations authorizing reliance on the new trading program to
meet NOX SIP Call obligations for large non-EGU boilers and
turbines, EPA neglected to amend the exception language in Sec.
51.121(r)(2) to reference the existence of the new replacement option.
    As noted above, in this action EPA would update obsolete cross-
references to Sec.  51.121(p) in both Sec.  51.121(r)(1) and (r)(2).
EPA also proposes to update the post-NBTP transition provision at Sec.
51.121(r)(2) in two further respects. First, as a replacement for the
obsolete cross-reference identifying the terminated option to rely on
the CAIR seasonal NOX trading program to fill gaps created
by NBTP discontinuation, a new cross-reference identifying the

current option to rely on the CSAPR Update trading program for this
purpose would be added. This revision would not create a new option--
because the option to rely on the CSAPR Update is already authorized
under the CSAPR regulations--but it would clarify the NOX
SIP Call regulations. Second, Sec.  51.121(r)(2) would be revised to
expressly apply where a state's SIP ``includes or included'' trading
program provisions to achieve the required emissions reductions. The
purpose of this proposed revision is to eliminate any possible mistaken
inference that a state's obligation to maintain NOX SIP Call
emission controls might be contingent on whether its SIP currently
includes trading program provisions and to reinforce that the Rule's
emissions reductions are permanent and enforceable, as they must be to
support other EPA actions. Again, this revision would not alter any
existing regulatory requirements but would clarify the regulations.

E. Procedural Provisions

    EPA proposes to remove as obsolete a provision of the
NOX SIP Call regulations setting forth certain procedural
requirements for SIP submissions under the Rule. Currently, the Rule's
requirements at Sec.  51.121(d) include (1) submission deadlines for
Phase I and Phase II SIP submissions, (2) a requirement that
submissions satisfy the general criteria for completeness in appendix V
to 40 CFR part 51, and (3) a requirement that submissions be made in
the form of five paper copies. The submission deadlines are obsolete
because all required Phase I and Phase II SIP submissions have been
made, and the requirement for five paper copies is obsolete because EPA
now allows electronic SIP submissions. Any future SIP submissions under
the Rule--such as submissions taking advantage of the more flexible
monitoring requirements proposed in this action--would be subject to 40
CFR 51.103(a), a provision of EPA's general SIP regulations that
requires SIP submissions to conform to the completeness criteria in
appendix V and also identifies the current electronic and paper SIP
submission options. Removal of Sec.  51.121(d) therefore would clarify
the regulations by removing the obsolete requirement for five paper
copies and would not create any gap in procedural requirements for any
future SIP submissions under the Rule.

F. Editorial Revisions

    EPA also proposes to make non-substantive, solely editorial
revisions to several provisions of the NOX SIP Call
regulations beyond those already discussed. One revision would replace
the full-text definition of ``fossil fuel-fired'' at Sec.  51.121(i)(5)
with a cross-reference to an identical definition at Sec.
51.121(f)(3). In addition, minor revisions would be made to Sec.
51.121(b)(1)(ii), (e)(2)(ii)(B), (e)(2)(ii)(E), (f)(2)(i)(B),
(f)(2)(ii), (h), (i)(2), (i)(3), (l)(1), (l)(2), (m), (n), and (o) and
the section heading. The proposed revisions would not alter any
regulatory requirements and would generally improve clarity by reducing
redundancy, standardizing terminology, and correcting various editorial
errors.

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

    The proposed amendments would not change any of the NOX
SIP Call's existing regulatory requirements related to statewide
emissions budgets or enforceable mass emissions limits for large EGUs
and large non-EGU boilers and turbines. Accordingly, EPA expects that
the amendments, if finalized, would have no impact on emissions or air
quality.
    The only amendment proposed in this action that would substantively
alter existing regulatory requirements is the proposal to allow states
to revise their SIPs to establish monitoring requirements for large
non-EGU boilers and turbines (and some large EGUs not subject to the
Acid Rain Program or any CSAPR trading programs) other than part 75
monitoring requirements. Because states, not EPA, would decide whether
to revise the monitoring requirements in their SIPs and because EPA
lacks complete information on the remaining monitoring requirements
that the sources would face, it is currently not possible to predict
the amount of monitoring cost reductions that would occur if this
proposed rule is finalized. However, EPA expects that at least some
affected states would revise their SIPs and at least some sources would
experience reductions in monitoring costs.
    The potential cost reduction opportunity for any given unit in a
state that chooses to revise its SIP would depend on which of the
various monitoring methodologies allowed under part 75 the unit
currently uses and what other state and federal monitoring requirements
the unit would still face, including monitoring requirements adopted in
the state's SIP to replace the part 75 monitoring requirements. EPA's
records indicate that currently there are approximately 310 large EGUs
and large non-EGU boilers and turbines that are subject to part 75
monitoring requirements pursuant to the existing NOX SIP
Call requirement at Sec.  51.121(i)(4) and that are not also subject to
comparable part 75 monitoring requirements under the Acid Rain Program
or a CSAPR trading program. According to the part 75 monitoring plans
submitted for these units,\52\ approximately 90 units use monitoring
methodologies involving continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
to measure both stack gas flow rate and the concentrations of certain
gases in the effluent gas stream, approximately 140 units use
methodologies involving gas concentration CEMS but not stack gas flow
rate CEMS, and approximately 80 units use non-CEMS methodologies.\53\
As a result of the amendments proposed in this action, some of the 230
units currently using CEMS may ultimately be able to discontinue use of
stack gas flow rate CEMS, gas concentration CEMS, or both, to the
extent that the units do not face similar monitoring requirements under
other state or federal regulations, possibly including, but not limited
to, the replacement monitoring requirements established by states for
NOX SIP Call purposes. Discontinuing usage of one or both
types of CEMS has the potential to result in reductions in overall
monitoring costs. Further, even if a unit remains subject to
requirements to use some type of CEMS under other regulations, the
specific CEMS-related requirements under the other regulations may
entail lower costs than the specific CEMS-related requirements under
part 75.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The monitoring plans are available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/monitoring-plans-part-75-sources.
    \53\ Under part 75, options to use alternatives to stack gas
flow rate CEMS are available to almost all units that combust only
gaseous and liquid fuels, and options to use alternatives to gas
concentration CEMS for measuring NOX emissions are
available to any such units whose utilization rates or mass
emissions fall below specified maximum limits. See 40 CFR
75.19(a)(1), section 1.1 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 75, and
section 1.1 of appendix E to 40 CFR part 75; see also 40 CFR 72.2
(definitions of ``gas-fired'', ``oil-fired'', and ``peaking unit'').
    \54\ For example, other regulations may require less extensive
data reporting or less comprehensive quality-assurance testing than
would be required under part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the 80 units that are subject to part 75 monitoring
requirements pursuant to the existing NOX SIP Call
requirement at Sec.  51.121(i)(4), that are not also subject to
comparable part 75 monitoring requirements under the Acid Rain Program
or a CSAPR trading program, and that already use non-CEMS methodologies
under Part 75, EPA expects that these units generally would experience
little or no reduction in monitoring costs resulting from the

amendments proposed in this action. Similarly, the proposed amendments
would not lead to any reduction in monitoring costs for units that
would remain subject to Part 75 monitoring requirements under the Acid
Rain Program or a CSAPR trading program. The proposed amendments also
would not lead to any reduction in monitoring costs for units that
formerly participated in the NBTP under states' SIPs but that are not
large EGUs or large non-EGU boilers or turbines subject to the existing
NOX SIP Call requirement at Sec.  51.121(i)(4),\55\ because
the existing NOX SIP Call regulations do not prevent states
from revising their SIPs to end Part 75 monitoring requirements for
these sources even without the proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ According to EPA's records, currently there are
approximately 130 such units, of which approximately 110 units
already use non-CEMS methodologies under Part 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Comment

    EPA requests comment on the proposed amendment discussed in section
III.A. to revise the provision at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) to allow states
to establish monitoring requirements for large EGUs and large non-EGU
boilers and turbines in their SIPs other than Part 75 monitoring
requirements.
    EPA believes the proposed amendments discussed in sections III.B.
through III.F., if finalized, would not substantively alter existing
regulatory requirements, and EPA is not reopening the provisions
discussed in these sections (or any related provisions) for substantive
comment. With respect to these proposed amendments, EPA requests and
will accept comment solely on whether the provisions proposed for
removal as obsolete in fact are obsolete and on whether the proposed
clarifications in fact achieve clarification.
    EPA is expressly not reopening for comment any provisions of the
existing NOX SIP Call regulations except the provisions that
are proposed to be amended as discussed in section III of this
proposal.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Regulatory findings and requirements that EPA is not
proposing to substantively amend and that are not being reopened for
substantive comment include (but are not limited to) the findings of
good neighbor obligations with respect to the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, the requirements for SIPs to contain control measures
addressing these obligations, the final NOX budgets, the
requirement for enforceable limits on seasonal NOX mass
emissions for large EGUs and large non-EGUs where states have
included control measures for these types of sources in their SIPs,
the requirement for states to adopt replacement control measures
into their SIPs to achieve the emissions reductions formerly
projected to be achieved by the NBTP, and the general requirements
for enforceability and for monitoring of the status of compliance
with the control measures adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden
reduction by allowing states to establish lower-cost monitoring
requirements in their SIPs for some sources as alternatives to Part 75
monitoring requirements. However, because states, not EPA, would decide
whether to revise the monitoring requirements in their SIPs and because
EPA lacks complete information on the remaining monitoring requirements
that the sources would face, EPA cannot currently predict the amount of
monitoring cost reductions that would occur if this proposed rule is
finalized. A qualitative discussion of the possible monitoring cost
reductions can be found in EPA's analysis of the potential impacts
associated with this action in section IV.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0445. However, to reflect the
proposed amendment allowing states to establish potentially lower-cost
monitoring requirements for some sources as alternatives to the current
Part 75 monitoring requirements, EPA is submitting an information
collection request (ICR) renewal to OMB. The ICR document prepared by
EPA, which has been assigned EPA ICR number 1857.08, can be found in
the docket for this proposed action. Like the current ICR, the ICR
renewal reflects the information collection burden and costs associated
with Part 75 monitoring requirements for sources that are subject to
Part 75 monitoring requirements under the SIP revisions addressing
states' NOX SIP Call obligations and that are not subject to
Part 75 monitoring requirements under another program (i.e., the Acid
Rain Program or a CSAPR trading program). The ICR renewal is generally
unchanged from the current ICR except that the renewal reflects
projected decreases in the numbers of sources that would perform Part
75 monitoring for NOX SIP Call purposes based on an
assumption (made only for purposes of estimating information collection
burden and costs for the ICR renewal) that, over the course of the 3-
year renewal period, some states will revise their SIPs to replace Part
75 monitoring requirements for some sources with lower-cost monitoring
requirements. As under the current ICR, all information collected from
sources under the ICR renewal will be treated as public information.
    Respondents/affected entities: Fossil fuel-fired boilers and
stationary combustion turbines that have heat input capacities greater
than 250 mmBtu/hr or serve electricity generators with nameplate
capacities greater than 25 MW and that are not subject to Part 75
monitoring requirements under another program.
    Respondents' obligation to respond: Mandatory if elected by the
state (40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) as proposed to be amended).
    Estimated number of respondents: 340 (average over 2019-2021
renewal period).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 131,945 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $19,143,004 (per year), includes $8,256,087
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB
is required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments
no later than October 29, 2018. EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

D. 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 does not
directly regulate any entity, but would simply allow states to
establish potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some
sources and generally streamline existing regulations. EPA has
therefore concluded that this action will either relieve or have no net
regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

E. 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 would simply allow states to establish
potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and
generally streamline existing regulations.

F. 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 would simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost
monitoring requirements for some sources and generally streamline
existing regulations.

G. 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 would
simply allow states to establish potentially lower-cost monitoring
requirements for some sources and generally streamline existing
regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that 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 would simply allow states to establish potentially
lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and generally
streamline existing regulations.

I. 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 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    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 would simply allow states to establish
potentially lower-cost monitoring requirements for some sources and
generally streamline existing regulations. Consistent with Executive
Order 12898 and EPA's environmental justice policies, EPA considered
effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and indigenous
peoples while developing the original NOX SIP Call. The
process and results of that consideration are described in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the NOX SIP Call.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

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

40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 13, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 51 and 52 of chapter
I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--Control Strategy

Sec.  51.121  [Amended]

0
 2. Section 51.121 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
d. In paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, removing the text ``section,
the'' and adding in its place the text ``section, each'';
0
e. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), adding the word ``applicable'' before the
word ``budget'', and removing the text ``(except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section),'' and adding in its place a
semicolon ``;'';
0
f. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), removing the period and adding in its place
the text ``; and'';
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2);
0
h. In paragraph (c)(1), removing the text ``With respect to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS:'';
0
i. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the text ``With respect to the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, the portions of Missouri, Michigan, and Alabama'' and
adding in

its place the text ``The portions of Alabama, Michigan, and Missouri'';
0
j. Removing and reserving paragraph (d);
0
k. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i);
0
l. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B), removing the text ``De Kalb,'' and
adding in its place the text ``DeKalb,'';
0
m. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(E), removing the text ``St. Genevieve,'',
and after the text ``St. Louis City,'' adding the text ``Ste.
Genevieve,'';
0
n. Removing paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(5);
0
o. In paragraph (f)(2)(i)(B), removing the text ``mass NOX''
and adding in its place the text ``NOX mass'';
0
 p. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), removing the text ``(b)(1) (i)'' and
adding in its place the text ``(b)(1)(i)'';
0
 q. In paragraph (g)(2)(i), removing the text ``as set forth for the
State in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section,'';
0
r. Removing and reserving paragraph (g)(2)(ii);
0
s. In paragraphs (h), (i)(2), and (i)(3), removing the words ``of this
part'';
0
t. Revising paragraphs (i)(4) and (i)(5);
0
u. In paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (m), removing the words ``of this
part'';
0
v. In paragraph (n), removing the text ``Sec.  52.31(c) of this part''
and adding in its place the text ``40 CFR 52.31(c)'', and removing the
text ``Sec.  52.31 of this part.'' and adding in its place the text
``40 CFR 52.31.'';
0
w. In paragraph (o), removing the words ``of this part'';
0
x. Removing and reserving paragraphs (p) and (q); and
0
y. Revising paragraph (r).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  51.121   Findings and requirements for submission of State
implementation plan revisions relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides.

    (a) * * *
    (3)(i) For purposes of this section, the term ``Phase I SIP
submission'' means a SIP revision submitted by a State on or before
October 30, 2000 in compliance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section to limit projected NOX emissions from sources in the
relevant portion or all of the State, as applicable, to no more than
the State's Phase I NOX budget under paragraph (e) of this
section.
    (ii) For purposes of this section, the term ``Phase II SIP
submission'' means a SIP revision submitted by a State in compliance
with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section to limit projected
NOX emissions from sources in the relevant portion or all of
the State, as applicable, to no more than the State's final
NOX budget under paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2)(i) The State-by-State amounts of the Phase I and final
NOX budgets, expressed in tons, are listed in Table 1 to
Paragraph (e)(2)(i)--State NOX Budgets

            Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(2)(i)--State NOX Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Phase I
                  State                       budget       Final  budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................         124,795         119,827
Connecticut.............................          42,891          42,850
Delaware................................          23,522          22,862
District of Columbia....................           6,658           6,657
Illinois................................         278,146         271,091
Indiana.................................         234,625         230,381
Kentucky................................         165,075         162,519
Maryland................................          82,727          81,947
Massachusetts...........................          85,871          84,848
Michigan................................         191,941         190,908
Missouri................................  ..............          61,406
New Jersey..............................          95,882          96,876
New York................................         241,981         240,322
North Carolina..........................         171,332         165,306
Ohio....................................         252,282         249,541
Pennsylvania............................         268,158         257,928
Rhode Island............................           9,570           9,378
South Carolina..........................         127,756         123,496
Tennessee...............................         201,163         198,286
Virginia................................         186,689         180,521
West Virginia...........................          85,045          83,921
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) If the revision contains measures to control fossil fuel-fired
NOX sources serving electric generators with a nameplate
capacity greater than 25 MWe or boilers, combustion turbines or
combined cycle units with a maximum design heat input greater than 250
mmBtu/hr, then the revision may require some or all such sources to
comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of
40 CFR part 75, subpart H, provided that nothing in this section
creates any exception to any requirements of 40 CFR part 75 that may
apply to such a source under any other legal authority. A State
requiring such compliance authorizes the Administrator to assist the
State in implementing the revision by carrying out the functions of the
Administrator under such part.
    (5) For purposes of paragraph (i)(4) of this section, the term
``fossil fuel-fired'' has the meaning set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of
this section.
* * * * *
    (r)(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of subparts A through I of 40
CFR part 96 and any State's SIP to the contrary, with regard to any
ozone season that occurs after September 30, 2008, the Administrator
will not carry out any of the functions set forth for the Administrator
in subparts A through I of 40 CFR part 96 or in any emissions trading
program provisions in a State's SIP approved under this section.
    (2) Except as provided in 40 CFR 52.38(b)(10)(ii), a State whose
SIP is approved as meeting the requirements of this section and that
includes or included an emissions trading program approved under this
section must revise the SIP to adopt control measures that satisfy the
same portion of the State's NOX emissions reduction
requirements under this section as the State projected

such emissions trading program would satisfy.

 Sec.  51.122  [Amended]

0
 3. Section 51.122 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii), removing the text ``pursuant to a trading
program approved under Sec.  51.121(p) or''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), italicizing the heading ``Approval of ozone season
calculation by EPA.''.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.  52.38  [Amended]

0
 5. In Sec.  52.38, paragraphs (b)(8)(ii), (b)(8)(iii)(A)(2),
(b)(9)(ii), and (b)(9)(iii)(A)(2) are amended by removing the text
``Sec.  51.121(p)'' and adding in its place the text ``Sec.  51.121''.

[FR Doc. 2018-20858 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P