[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31350-31352]
[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,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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

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.

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


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8529-8530]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2014-0011-N-02]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The information collection requirements described below will
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). FRA is
seeking public comments on its proposal to renew its PRA clearance to
participate in the OMB program ``Generic Clearance for the Collection
of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.'' This program was
created to facilitate federal agencies' efforts to streamline the
process to seek public feedback on service delivery. Current FRA
clearance under this program expires July 31, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following
proposed activities by mail to Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters
requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must
include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, ``Comments on OMB
control number 2130-0593.'' Alternatively, comments may be transmitted
via facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email to Ms. Toone at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in
any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its
information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12862 (1993) (``Setting
Customer Service Standards'') directed all Federal executive
departments and agencies and

requested independent Federal agencies to provide service to
``customers'' that matches or exceeds the best service available in the
private sector. See also Executive Order 13571 (2011) (``Streamlining
Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service''). For purposes of
these orders, ``customer'' means an individual who or entity that is
directly served by a department or agency. FRA seeks renewed OMB
approval of a generic clearance to collect qualitative feedback on our
service delivery (i.e., the products and services that FRA creates to
help consumers and businesses understand their rights and
responsibilities, including Web sites, blogs, videos, print
publications, and other content).
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activity
that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery OMB Control Number: 2130-0593.
    Status: Regular Review.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a previously approved
collection.
    Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to enable the
Agency to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient,
timely manner, in accordance with our commitment to improving service
delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders
will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and
satisfying experience with the Agency's programs. This feedback will
provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences
and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or
focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It also allows feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of
program management.
    Improving agency programs requires ongoing assessment of service
delivery, by which we mean systematic review of the operation of a
program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means
of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program. The
Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered
through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of
current services and make improvements in service delivery based on
feedback. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as:
timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy,
efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service
delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to
improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If
this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     Information gathered will be used only internally for
general service improvement and program management purposes and is not
intended for release outside of the agency (if released, procedures
outlined in Question 16 will be followed);
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions;
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study;
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are non-controversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future; and
     With the exception of information needed to provide
remuneration for participants of focus groups and cognitive laboratory
studies, personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to
the extent necessary and is not retained.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Business and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.
    Frequency of Submission: Once per request.
    Total Annual Number of Respondents: 2100.
    Total Estimated Responses: 2100.
    Average Minutes per Response: 10 minutes.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 354 hours.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2014.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-03054 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P