31350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The term state has the same meaning as 

provided in CAA section 302(d) which specifically 

includes the District of Columbia. 

2SIP 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. 

3All 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). 

4NOX 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). 

5The four-step interstate framework has also been 

used to address requirements of the good neighbor 

provision for some previous particulate matter (PM) 

NAAQS. 

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 

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. 

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 

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 

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 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 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 31351 

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). 

8Within 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. 

9On 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. 

10The 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). 

11CSAPR 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. 

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 

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 

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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
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. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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 http://

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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1