83 FR 31350 - Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standard

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 129 (July 5, 2018)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) that pertains to the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA's good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the ability of other states \1\ to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires each state in its SIP to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in another state. The District has submitted a SIP revision that addresses the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the District's SIP as having adequate provisions to meet the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31350-31352]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14332]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701; FRL-9980-33--Region 3]


Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation 
Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) that pertains to 
the good neighbor and interstate transport requirements of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS). The CAA's good neighbor provision requires EPA and states to 
address the interstate transport of air pollution that affects the 
ability of other states \1\ to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 
Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires each state in its 
SIP to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in another 
state. The District has submitted a SIP revision that addresses the 
good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this action, EPA 
is proposing to approve the District's SIP as having adequate 
provisions to meet the requirements of the good neighbor provision for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term state has the same meaning as provided in CAA 
section 302(d) which specifically includes the District of Columbia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2014-0701 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 13, 2014, the District Department of 
the Environment (DDOE) on behalf of the District submitted a revision 
to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2), including 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and 
secondary ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 
ppm (73 FR 16436). Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 
presence of sunlight. NOX and VOCs are referred to as ozone 
precursors and are emitted by many types of pollution sources, 
including motor vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, and area 
wide sources, such as consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. 
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur 
following exposure to ozone. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 
states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or 
revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the applicable elements of sections 
110(a)(2).\2\ Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) generally requires SIPs to 
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities 
from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to 
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four prongs within 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains 
prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 
4. Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also called the good neighbor 
provision, a state's SIP must contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from 
emitting air pollutants that ``contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state 
with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air 
quality standard.'' Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, EPA 
gives independent significance to the matter of nonattainment (prong 1) 
and to that of maintenance (prong 2). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of 
the CAA requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in 
the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to 
prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to 
protect visibility (prong 4). This proposed action addresses only 
prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often referred to as 
infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a)(2) are referred to 
as infrastructure requirements.
    \3\ All the other infrastructure SIP elements for the District 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were addressed in a separate rulemaking. 
See 80 FR 19538 (May 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of several previous 
rulemakings,\4\ EPA, working in partnership with states, established 
the four-step interstate transport framework to address the 
requirements of the good neighbor provision for ozone NAAQS.\5\ The 
four steps are: Step 1--Identify downwind receptors that are expected 
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; step 2--determine 
which upwind states contribute enough to these identified downwind air 
quality problems to warrant further review and analysis; step 3--
identify the emissions reductions necessary to prevent an identified 
upwind state from contributing significantly to those downwind air 
quality problems; and step 4--adopt permanent and

[[Page 31351]]

enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOX SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998); 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 75 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); and 
CSAPR Update. 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \5\ The four-step interstate framework has also been used to 
address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some 
previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA gives EPA a backstop role to issue federal implementation 
plans (FIPs), as appropriate, for states that do not have good neighbor 
provisions approved in their SIP. To meet the Agency's backstop role 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA finalized an update to the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program by issuing CSAPR Update 
on September 7, 2016 (81 FR 74504). CSAPR Update addresses the 
summertime (May-September) transport of ozone pollution in the eastern 
United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and 
communities meet and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ CSAPR Update 
uses the same framework used by EPA in developing the original CSAPR, 
EPA's transport rule addressing the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 
1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In CSAPR Update, EPA issued FIPs to address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations for 22 eastern states, not including the 
District.
    \7\ Key elements of the four-step interstate transport framework 
have been upheld by the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to apply the first and second steps of the four-step 
interstate transport framework for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA evaluated 
modeling projections for air quality monitoring sites in 2017 and 
considered current-at-the-time ozone monitoring data at these sites to 
identify receptors \8\ that are anticipated to have problems attaining 
or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA then used air quality modeling 
to assess contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors 
and evaluated the contributions relative to a screening threshold of 
one percent (1%) of the NAAQS. States with contributions that equaled 
or exceeded 1% of the NAAQS were identified as warranting further 
analysis for significant contribution to nonattainment or interference 
with maintenance. States with contributions below 1% of the NAAQS were 
considered to not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. In its 
CSAPR Update analysis for the final rule, EPA found that the District 
of Columbia did not contribute at or above the 1% threshold to any 
downwind nonattainment receptor, but did contribute at or above the 1% 
threshold to one downwind maintenance receptor in Harford County, 
Maryland (210251001). Because of the District's linkage to a 
maintenance receptor, EPA continued to step 3 of the four-step 
framework, where EPA's analysis found no electric generating units 
(EGUs) in the District of Columbia, with the result that the District 
has no potential to reduce NOX emissions from EGUs. At the 
time of CSAPR Update's final action, the District's June 13, 2014 SIP 
submission (addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as well as all of 
110(a)(2)), was still pending before the Agency. Given the then-pending 
SIP, the District's lack of EGUs, and EPA's overall assessment that 
non-EGU controls were neither cost-effective nor feasible by the 2017 
implementation year for any states identified as linked to a downwind 
receptor, EPA did not issue FIP requirements for sources in the 
District as part of CSAPR Update. See 81 FR at 74553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Within the CSAPR framework, the term ``receptor'' indicates 
a monitoring site. Under CSAPR Update, nonattainment receptors are 
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have an average 
design value that exceed the NAAQS and that have a current monitored 
design value above the NAAQS, while maintenance receptors are 
downwind monitoring sites that are projected to have maximum design 
values that exceed the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 13, 2014, the District, through the DDOE, submitted a SIP 
revision to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving 
the remaining portion of the District's June 13, 2014 submittal,\9\ 
which consists of prongs 1 and 2 found under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19538), EPA approved portions of 
the District's June 13, 2014 submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
addressing the following: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). In 
that action, EPA stated it would take later action on the portion of 
the June 13, 2014 SIP submittal addressing section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its June 13, 2014 submittal, hereafter known simply as the 
submittal, the District identifies the implemented regulations within 
its SIP that limit NOX and/or VOC emissions from District 
sources. The District indicates that there are no EGUs \10\ or other 
large industrial sources of NOX emissions within the 
District. In the submittal, the District also included information on 
non-EGUs and mobile sources. Attachment A of the submittal lists the 
SIP-approved measures that help to reduce NOX and VOC 
emissions from non-EGU and mobile sources within the District. The 
submittal is available in the docket for this rulemaking and available 
online at www.regulations.gov, docket ID number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. 
In the submittal, the District points out that it will continue to rely 
on federal measures to reduce NOX emissions from onroad and 
nonroad engines. The District states its sources are already well 
controlled, and states further reductions beyond the District's current 
SIP measures are not economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The District's last remaining EGUs were decommissioned in 
2012, in part to meet permit requirements incorporated into the 
District's Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 5191 (February 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation

    EPA evaluated the submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, considering: 
Ozone precursor emissions; an analysis of District source sectors; and 
in-place controls and regulations. The District was not linked to any 
nonattainment receptors with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and EPA 
has therefore already concluded that the District of Columbia will not 
significantly contribute to the nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
in another state. EPA consequently proposes to approve prong 1 of the 
District's submittal with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    However, for prong 2, because the District is among 11 states that 
were linked to the Harford County, Maryland maintenance receptor, EPA 
further evaluated emissions and sources in the District to determine if 
the District would interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS at the 
Harford receptor.
    To better understand the District's ozone precursor emissions, EPA 
compared the data from the two most recent National Emissions 
Inventories (NEIs). Both total VOC and NOX emissions were 
reduced between 2011 and 2014 and NOX emissions are expected 
to be reduced even further by 2017. For example, the total 
NOX emissions from within the District are projected to be 
6,052 tons per year (tpy) in 2017, down from 9,402 tpy in 2011, based 
on the CSAPR Update 2017 base case emissions inventory.\11\ A more 
detailed evaluation regarding District NOX emissions is 
provided in the technical support document (TSD) for this action, 
located in www.regulations.gov, docket ID number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CSAPR Update final rule TSD ``Preparation of Emissions 
Inventories for the Version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform.'' 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/2011v6_3_2017_emismod_tsd_aug2016_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its review of the submittal, EPA also assessed the current 
NOX and VOC emission sources in the District. There are no 
remaining EGUs as the District's last remaining EGU was decommissioned 
in 2012. The District's two largest emitters of NOX, the 
U.S.

[[Page 31352]]

General Services Administration's Central Heating and Refrigeration 
Plant and the U.S. Capital Power Plant, are subject to federally 
enforceable emissions limits that have already resulted in significant 
emission reductions of NOX over the years as discussed in 
detail in EPA's TSD. Also discussed in the TSD, the District has a 
variety of other small non-EGU sources where emissions of 
NOX and/or VOC are controlled through the District's SIP-
approved regulations. These provisions and regulations include 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major stationary 
sources of NOX and VOCs, and rules that limit nonpoint 
source VOC emissions. An in-depth review of these provisions and 
regulations, in addition to further information regarding the specific 
sources found in the District and their emissions are discussed in the 
TSD for this notice, located in www.regulations.gov, docket ID number 
EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0701. In the TSD, EPA also analyzed the feasibility of 
additional control options for District sources and determined that the 
District's relatively small to medium size point sources are already 
well controlled under the District's SIP and that there may be limited 
NOX reduction cost-effectiveness in controlling these 
sources further in regards to interstate transport for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS.
    Due to the District's small number of sources and the high cost of 
further reductions as discussed in the TSD, EPA is proposing to 
determine that the District's SIP, as presently approved, contains 
adequate measures to prevent District sources from interfering with 
maintenance in another state for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portion of the June 13, 
2014 District of Columbia SIP revision that addresses prongs 1 and 2 of 
the interstate transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in accordance with section 110 of the CAA for 
the reasons discussed in this rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will 
be considered before taking final action.
    In 2015, EPA approved the following infrastructure elements or 
portions thereof from the June 13, 2014 submittal: CAA section 
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 
(K), (L), and (M). 80 FR 19538 (April 13, 2015).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the District of 
Columbia's interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to 
apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.


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

    Dated: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-14332 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P