Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia; State Implementation Plan for the Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Standard, 31350-31352 [2018-14332]
Download as PDF
31350
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: June 21, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018–14333 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
1 The term state has the same meaning as
provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically
includes the District of Columbia.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Jul 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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).
4 NO SIP Call. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998);
X
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.
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
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
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
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).
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Jul 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31351
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.
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.
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
31352
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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 SIPapproved 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.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Jul 03, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0441; FRL–9980–
34—Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP)
submission from Maryland addressing
the infrastructure requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2012 annual fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard).
The infrastructure requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state’s air quality
management program are adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under
the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve
Maryland’s submittal addressing the
infrastructure requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements of section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2017–0441 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JYP1.SGM
05JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31350-31352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 https://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