[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11237-11238]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1785-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per
154.204: DCP--February 18, 2011 Non-Conforming Service Agreement to be
effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110218-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1786-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.204: DTI--February 18, 2011 Non-Conforming Service Agreements to be
effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110218-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1787-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): Annual Fuel Tracker Filing to be
effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110218-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1788-000.
    Applicants: Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C.
    Description: Freebird Gas Storage, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
154.203:

Freebird Gas Storage Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 2/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110218-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1789-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Contract Compliance Filing--RP10-758 to be
effective 12/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 02/18/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110218-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1790-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 154.204: 2011 Daggett Surcharge to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110222-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 07, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1791-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Hanging Rock II,
LLC, Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC and
Duke Energy Hanging Rock II, LLC Request for Temporary Waiver of
Capacity Release Regulations, Expedited Action, and Shortened Notice
Period.
    Filed Date: 02/22/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110222-5241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1792-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per
154.204: DTI--Form of Service Agreement Revisions to be effective 3/28/
2011.
    Filed Date: 02/23/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110223-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 07, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 23, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4471 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88602-88603]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC24-26-000.
    Applicants: Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, Big Cajun I Peaking Power
LLC, Cottonwood Energy Company LP, Louisiana Generating LLC, Pelican
Power LLC, Big Pelican LLC, Pelican South Central LLC.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of Bayou Cove Peaking Power LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 12/14/23.
    Accession Number: 20231214-5267.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/24.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG24-57-000.
    Applicants: Ashtrom Renewable Energy LLC.
    Description: Ashtrom Renewable Energy LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20231215-5260.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/5/24.

    Docket Numbers: EG24-58-000.
    Applicants: Castanea Project, LLC.
    Description: Castanea Project, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1119-008; ER10-1123-010.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service
Company.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
Ameren Illinois Company, et. al.
    Filed Date: 12/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20231215-5317.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-381-009; ER10-1781-005; ER19-2626-007; ER21-
714-008; ER22-399-003.
    Applicants: Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC, Indiana Crossroads Wind
Farm LLC, Rosewater Wind Farm LLC, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Central Region of
Dunns Bridge Solar Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/15/23.
    Accession Number: 20231215-5316.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1304-000.
    Applicants: MFT Energy US 1 LLC.
    Description: Supplemental of Refund Report of MFT Energy US 1 LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2355-002.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Submission of Response to Deficiency
Letter, Amended ISA, SA No. 5833 to be effective 9/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2882-001.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Alabama Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): Hancock County Solar Project LGIA Deficiency
Response to be effective 9/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2890-001.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Alabama Power Company submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): CROS bn (Crossroads Solar + BESS) LGIA Deficiency
Response to be effective 9/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-24-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Versant Power.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO New England Inc. submits tariff
filing per 35: Versant Power; Refund Report in Docket No. ER24-24-__ to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-691-000.
    Applicants: California State University Channel Islands Site
Authority.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of California State
University Channel Islands Site Authority.
    Filed Date: 12/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20231213-5234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-692-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PacifiCorp OATT Revised
Attachment H-1--Attachments 3 and 5 to be effective 2/17/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-693-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State NITSA Rev 12 to be
effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-694-000.
    Applicants: Boston Energy Trading and Marketing LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate
Tariff to be effective 12/19/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-695-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Rhineng BESS LGIA Filing to
be effective 12/4/2023.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    Docket Numbers: ER24-696-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Eversource Energy Service Company
(as agent).
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO New England Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Eversource; Refund of Difference
Between Actual and Fixed Amounts for PBOP to be effective 2/16/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20231218-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/24.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary
to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 18, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28257 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32932]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15233]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July
18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium, Room LL-002 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be
webcast on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The subject matters of the Open Meeting will
be the Commission's consideration of:
    1. Whether to adopt an amendment to Securities Act Rule 701(e), as
mandated by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act.
    2. Whether to issue a concept release requesting comment on
potential revisions to Securities Act Rule 701 and Securities Act Form
S-8.
    3. Whether to propose amendments to the disclosure requirements in
Rule 3-10 and Rule 3-16 of Regulation S-X.
    4. Whether to adopt amendments to Rule 3a1-1 and Regulation ATS and
new Form ATS-N under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to
certain alternative trading systems.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the
scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please
contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-
5400.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15233 Filed 7-12-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 11/ 26/ 02 Response to Scientific Advisory Panel Comments on Applicability of the Up and Down Procedure Methodology for Acute Oral Toxicity Testing Comment 1: The Panel concluded that the Up and Down Procedure ( UDP) assay can be fairly and readily conducted inasmuch as any laboratory that can conduct a traditional LD50 test can conduct the UDP. Laboratory and animal issues unique to the UDP for acute testing include: ( i) individual animal dosing and prolonged study time utilizes laboratory space inefficiently and adds cost; and ( ii) maintenance of animal weights and age for the duration of the study is more difficult and could necessitate additional shipments of animals; and ( iii) special methods may be needed to ensure accurate dosing and dose dilution over time.

Agency response: The Agency acknowledges that these issues require careful planning on the part of laboratories performing the UDP. However, the UDP guideline meets animal welfare goals; it calls for a reduced number of test subjects and incorporates OECD Humane Practices for animal treatment.

Comment 2: Since the guideline calls for use of a single sex, in order to minimize population variance, it is important that the most sensitive sex be selected. In the majority of cases, females are more sensitive than males and would be the default choice in the absence of information to the contrary ( e. g., past experience with similar chemicals, knowledge of detoxification kinetics, etc.).

Agency response: As noted in the text of the guideline, the emphasis is on utilization of all available information on related materials and mode of toxic information in order to determine which sex is likely to be most sensitive. Therefore, toxicologists should always carefully consider selection of animal sex and selection of the most sensitive sex should also be justified in test reports.

Comment 3: An age range of 8 12 weeks for test animals, while giving needed flexibility for the staggered schedule of this study, may introduce variability because 8 week old rats are still in their rapid growth phase and may be different in dose response than ones of 12 weeks. Therefore, the Panel recommended use of a narrower age interval of 9  11 weeks.

Agency response: Although a narrower age limit may be desirable, the Agency selected 8  12 weeks to harmonize with OECD practice for acute testing.

Comment 4: The Panel agreed that histopathology would add no useful information. The suggestion that histopathology be considered in study design was viewed as adding no useful information. More useful pathology will be obtained from studies of longer duration, e. g. 28 and 90 day studies. 2 Agency response: Histopathology is not required in the guideline, but if it is performed, a standard reporting format is identified.

Comment 5: The Panel agreed that selection of starting doses should not be a problem for informed toxicologists. The Panel also recognized that reducing step size [ too far] might result in too narrow a range of doses and give a poor LD50 estimate and suggested that additional information could be incorporated in a Bayesian analysis as an alternative to the profile likelihood analysis proposed. The Panel noted that if additional [ intermediate] doses are added after selection of initial sigma and dose progression, the software calculates the LD50 and profile likelihood. Calculation of the confidence interval remains valid.

Agency response: Simulations show that the UDP works best when all available information is brought to bear when selecting starting dose and dose progression. If initial choice of sigma and dose progression appears to be too wide, the software can accept intermediate doses and will calculate an acceptable LD50s, but the confidence interval provided will not be accurate, posing significant problems in interpretation of test results.

Flexible stopping rules tend to compensate if choice of step size is too narrow. Sequential frequentist and Bayesian analyses are a new direction for acute testing analyses in general, and the statistical community is being encouraged to explore how the design and estimation may be improved by their consideration. Incorporation of additional information, as through use of Bayesian statistical analysis, may be feasible in the future as the science develops.

Comment 6: The Panel agreed with the 48 hour dosing interval.

Agency response: The Agency takes note of this comment. Of course, the guideline specifies 48 hours as normative and for certain chemicals this dosing time interval can be changed.

Comment 7: The Panel agreed with the Agency that LD50 estimates generated from the UDP will be sufficient for hazard classification and labeling of products and noted that the point estimates will be especially useful in the classification of mixtures. However, the Panel cautioned that, due to the small number of animals used, the confidence interval must be considered inexact and, in many instances, it will be very wide. Even for hazard classification, the Panel noted, there is the possibility that a small error in estimation could put a chemical into a different hazard class. The Panel cited the fact that the Agency suggested that whenever there was uncertainty at a boundary, the chemical or mixture would be assigned to the more toxic class.

Agency response: The Agency agrees that a primary application of the UDP guideline is for hazard classification and labeling of products. As it interprets acute testing results, the Agency will carefully consider the caveats identified in the Scientific Advisory Panel report in order to maintain protection of human health.

Comment 8: The Panel pointed out that the UDP will not be sufficient for risk assessment 3 procedures that require information on the slope or shape of the dose response curve especially for tiered ecological risk assessments. In cases where the confidence bounds on a probabilistic risk assessment are too wide, the Agency will have to add additional animals to the UDP or perform a LD50 test with standard techniques traditionally used. Limitations of the UDP for ecological risk assessments are as follows and should be clearly recognized. ( 1) UDP test results do not lend themselves to the generation of a NOAEL or an estimate of the NOAEL by means of a point estimate such as the LDx; ( 2) The proposed UDP test does not provide information about the slope of the dose response curve, especially when a minimal number of animals are used and no partial kills are obtained; ( 3) Reduction in the number of animals, while beneficial from one perspective, makes it more likely that the confidence interval will be larger, increasing the uncertainty in the LD50 value, raising issues of what is an acceptable confidence interval and when should additional animals be tested. In consequence, LD50 values obtained via this methodology will often have limited utility for risk assessment procedures where exposure and effects curves are compared since a reliable dose response curve will not be available from the acute rat test without additional testing.

Agency Response: The Agency recognizes these limitations of the UDP for tiered ecological risk assessment purposes and certain health effects purposes. However, in preparation for the transition to alternative testing approaches, Agency scientists and statisticians performed simulations of performance of the acute oral study utilizing the minimum of three groups of five animals. These simulations showed confidence intervals for slope in such traditional tests could be fairly wide and not necessarily suited to risk assessment purposes.

Comment 9: Current Agency policy requires a tiered approach for product evaluation under FIFRA in order to protect wildlife from adverse effects that may be manifested following pesticide exposure. Current ecological risk assessment procedures are thought to provide some measure of protection for wildlife. However, in the future, for ecological assessments which rely upon rat studies to estimate risk to other mammals, the Agency must be cautious that free ranging mammals are not placed at substantial risk.

Agency response: The Agency agrees and is developing additional guidance consistent with Part 158 for higher tier testing to reduce uncertainty in ecological risk assessment.

Comment 10: At the first tier of the ecological risk assessment process, an LD50 is required for deterministic assessment. This estimate must be accurate enough to prevent erroneous conclusions progressing to higher tiers. Substantial concern exists that uncertainties at the screening level are already too great to provide useful decisions. Known biases in the UDP may impact the validity of assumptions made in current early tier/ level ecological risk assessments. If tests which provide data for screening level assessments are altered, the alteration must not result in wider confidence limits and a reduced level of certainty in screening or higher level assessments.

Agency response: In determining the need for the wild mammal test for terrestrial ecological effects, Part 158 calls for the Agency to consider results of acute and subacute testing at Tier 1, 4 along with use pattern and environmental fate characteristics. Results of simulations show that if the initial dose and dose progression for the UDP are chosen in the optimum fashion described in the guideline, the confidence interval which describes uncertainty in the LD50 may be relatively narrow. However, until the results of laboratory testing of pesticides are available, the degree to which the UDP will be useful in Tier 1 ecological risk assessment is uncertain. The Agency recognizes that the confidence interval from UDP tests submitted for registration or reregistration may not always be sufficiently narrow for use in Tier 1 ecological risk assessments and is developing a policy, including consideration of higher tier testing such as wild mammal testing, to address this.

Comment 11: The Panel noted that multiple LD 50 values for different ( mammalian) species are utilized to identify the most sensitive species. Full dose response data for most of these ( focal) species are not typically available and are not needed to develop the acute 5th percentile species. Utilization of LD 50 values generated with the up down procedure are not expected to significantly affect the outcome of this procedure. However, lack of dose response data from an up down test for a key focal species or for the 5th percentile species would prevent accurate probabalistic risk assessment ( PRA) for that species, i. e., it would not be possible to accurately assess effects on that species due to exposures above or below the LD 50 exposure level. Without slope information, the dose response for a given species will be largely unknown and the confidence bound placed on modeled probabilistic risk assessments may be unacceptably wide.

Agency response: The Agency will take note of these points as it continues to develop approaches for probabilistic risk assessment for terrestrial species.

Comment 12: Overall, the guideline, additional guidance, software and software documentation provide sufficient guidance, supplemented with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM) report and special simulation results. Specific suggestions are as follows: ( i) the quality of the written guideline is adequate, but could be improved; although the panel recognizes that EPA must follow certain formatting rules. In addition, the Panel recommended that the following topics be moved from " Additional Guidance" to an Appendix: the linear probit dose response model; the likelihood function; the assumption of constant variance; the maximum likelihood estimation of LD50; the stopping rule; and the profile likelihood confidence bounds. and ( ii) a better illustration should be provided of procedural sequence in the course of testing and calculation for test scenarios.

Agency response:

For point ( i), the EPA guideline format has been adjusted in so far as possible to provide clear headings for many of the topics identified by the Panel. Additional definitions also provide clarification. Because the EPA 870.1100 guideline must track the OECD 425 guideline, the order of sections has not been changed. In addition, the Agency has developed a web site, to be used with the guideline, containing the AOT425StatPgm software and additional background material and guidance addressing these topics. 5 For point ( ii), as an illustration of procedural sequence and calculation, the Agency has added a diagram of the computer screen to illustrate each software image.

Comment 13: The Panel noted that documentation of AOT425StatPgm software for implementing the UDP dosing and LD50 calculations is well written and provides sufficient guidance to the user. The Panel suggests that the Agency simplify installation procedures to make it efficient and errorfree from user perspective.

Agency response: The software has been fixed to eliminate the need for the user to change installation file names or to ` ignore' error messages.

Comment 14: The Panel recommended that the Agency include an initial schematic that outlines the relation of the program's Data Edit and Report, the window task bars, and menu choices to provide the user an overview and facilitate migration between windows, tasks and options.

Agency response: These recommendations will be addressed in future revision of the AOT425StatPgm software.

Comment 15: The Panel recommended establishment of a data set and test protocol for verification of installation and software operation of the AOT425StatPgm on the users' computers.

Agency response: The Agency agreed with this comment and developed a test data collection consisting of a set of 15 sample experiments which can be used to verify the proper installation and operation of the software on the user's computer. The test data sets, instructions, and solutions to the sample runs are included on the EPA web site at www. epa. gov/ oppfead1/ harmonization, along with the AOT425StatPgm program , Users' Manual, and other related documents. The Users' Manual also includes instructions on how comments and questions pertaining to the software program can be directed to a specific AOT425 email address at EPA.

Comment 16: The Panel recommended that the software output show explicit calculations for: the linear probit dose response model; the likelihood function; the assumption of constant variance; the maximum likelihood estimate of LD50; the stopping rule; and the profile likelihood confidence bounds.

Agency response: The Agency agrees that it would be valuable for the output of the software to provide explicit calculations and will include such calculations and other changes in the next generation of the software, after more experience has been gained in its use.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47914-47923]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19669]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0207; FRL-9999-64-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Reasonably Available Control Technology State
Implementation Plan for Nitrogen Oxides Under the 2008 Ozone 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) revision submitted by the
District of Columbia. This revision pertains to reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) under the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (2008 ozone NAAQS). The District of Columbia's
submittal for the NOX RACT

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: Amends existing regulatory provisions to add
new or more stringent regulations or controls that represent RACT
control levels for combustion turbines and associated heat recovery
steam generators and duct burners, amends the applicability provisions
of these regulations to include all combustion turbines and associated
heat recovery steam generators and duct burners, and adds definitions;
includes a source specific NOX RACT determination for four
specific emissions units at one major stationary source of
NOX; includes a certification that, for other categories of
sources, NOX RACT controls already approved by EPA into the
District of Columbia's SIP for previous ozone NAAQS are based on
currently available technically and economically feasible controls and
continue to represent NOX RACT for 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
implementation purposes; and (4) removes carbon monoxide emissions
limits for combustion turbines that no longer exist in the District of
Columbia. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0207 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Cripps, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2179. Mr. Cripps can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 2018, and as supplemented on
December 19, 2018, the District of Columbia's Department of Energy and
Environmental (DOEE) submitted a revision to its SIP that addresses the
requirements of NOX RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) Determination for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--Final'') dated August
29, 2018 with amendments to its NOX control regulations and
an operating permit setting RACT for certain specific emissions units
at one major stationary source of NOX (hereafter 2008
NOX RACT Submission).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Also, on August 29, 2018 the District of Columbia submitted
a separate SIP revision to address all the VOC RACT requirements
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS both for VOC sources covered by a CTG and
for other major stationary sources of VOC. This VOC RACT SIP
revision is the subject of a separate rulemaking action. See 84 FR
33032, July 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. 1-Hour, 1997, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is
created by chemical reaction between NOX and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from
industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust,
gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of
NOX and VOC. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health
problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all
ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also
have harmful effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.
    CAA sections 108 and 109 require EPA to set primary and secondary
NAAQS. Primary NAAQS are those that the attainment and maintenance of
which, allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect
the public health. Secondary NAAQS specify a level of air quality the
attainment and maintenance of which is requisite to protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with
the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. Section 109(d)
of the CAA requires EPA to complete a thorough review of each NAAQS and
make revisions to existing NAAQS and promulgate new NAAQS as may be
appropriate. Since 1977, EPA has revised the NAAQS for ozone in 1979,
1997, 2008, and 2015. To date, the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS
have been set at the same level. See 40 CFR 50.9, 50.10, 50.15, and
50.19 and appendices thereto.
    The CAA sets forth a comprehensive regime for implementation of the
ozone NAAQS through Federal and state regulation of VOC and
NOX emissions. The requirements for ozone SIPs are found in
sections 172 and 182 through 185 of the CAA.
    Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, promulgated in 1979, the District of
Columbia had been designated as nonattainment for ozone prior to
November 15, 1990 and was designated as part of the multi-state
Washington Area ozone nonattainment area. This area was initially
classified as serious and was later reclassified as severe. See 56 FR
56694 (November 6, 1991); 68 FR 5246 (January 24, 2004); and 40 CFR
81.309.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ground level
ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the
level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to
0.08 ppm (1997 ozone NAAQS). On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the
District of Columbia under the 1997 ozone NAAQS as a part of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA moderate nonattainment area. See 69 FR 23858 and
40 CFR 81.309.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated the 2008 ozone NAAQS to
strengthen the 8-hour ozone standards, by revising its level to 0.075
ppm averaged over an 8-hour. On May 21, 2012, EPA designated, under the
2008 ozone NAAQS, the District of Columbia as a part of the Washington,
DC-MD-VA marginal nonattainment area. 77 FR 30088 and 40 CFR 81.309.
Subsequently, EPA redesignated the District of Columbia portion of this
area to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 84 FR 33855 (July 16,
2019).
    On March 6, 2015, EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country, effective on
April 6, 2015. EPA has determined that certain nonattainment planning
requirements continue to be in effect under the revoked standard for
nonattainment

areas under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including RACT. See 80 FR 12264.

B. RACT Requirements for Ozone

    The CAA regulates emissions of NOX and VOC to prevent
photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation in areas
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. All nonattainment areas
under any NAAQS are subject to the general nonattainment planning
requirements of CAA section 172. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides
that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include reasonably available
control measures (RACM) for demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS,
including emissions reductions from existing sources through the
adoption of RACT. Further, section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth
additional RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as moderate or higher.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth requirements regarding RACT
for the ozone NAAQS for VOC sources. Section 182(f) requires major
stationary sources of NOX be subject to the same RACT
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of VOC. A ``major
stationary source'' is defined based on the source's potential to emit
(PTE) of NOX or VOC, and the applicable thresholds for RACT.
These thresholds differ based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections 182(c)-
(f) and 302 of the CAA. Section 302(j) sets a general threshold of 100
tons per year (tpy) which may be lowered under section 182 depending
upon an area's nonattainment classification. For example, in a severe
ozone nonattainment area, the major stationary source threshold for
NOX is lowered to 25 tpy from 100 tpy.
    Section 184(a) of the CAA established the current Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) comprised of 12 eastern states, including the District of
Columbia. Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in
section 182(b)(2)(C) (relating to RACT on other major stationary
sources of VOC and pursuant to CAA section 182(f) to major stationary
sources of NOX) for moderate nonattainment areas to
nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to attainment areas
located within the OTR. This requirement is referred to as OTR RACT. As
noted previously, a ``major stationary source'' is defined based on the
source's PTE of NOX, VOC, or both pollutants, and the
applicable thresholds differ based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located and in some cases
being located within the OTR. See sections 182(c)-(f), 184(b) and
302(j) of the CAA. In the case of a marginal or moderate nonattainment
area located in the OTR, the major stationary source threshold for
NOX emissions is the same as the OTR threshold of 100 tpy or
more PTE.
    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined RACT as the lowest
emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. See 44 FR 53762
(September 17, 1979) and 57 FR 55620, 55624 (November 25, 1992).
Although EPA historically has recommended source-category-wide
presumptive RACT limits and plans to continue that practice, decisions
on RACT may be made on a case-by-case basis, that is, on an emissions
unit specific basis, considering the technological and economic
circumstances of the individual source. See 57 FR 55620, 55624
(November 25, 1992). A presumptive RACT emissions limit is an emissions
standard that applies to a category of emissions sources unless the
source seeks a case-by-case determination of RACT.
    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance.
In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the
implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in two phases (``Phase 1 of the
1997 Ozone Implementation Rule'' and ``Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule''). See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR
71612 (November 29, 2005), respectively. The Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the
1997 ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the
2008 ozone NAAQS (``the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule''). 80 FR
12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS, effective on
April 6, 2015. The 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule provided
comprehensive requirements to transition from the revoked 1997 ozone
NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40 CFR part 51, subpart
AA, following revocation.
    Consistent with previous policy, EPA determined that areas
designated nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS at the
time of revocation, must retain implementation of certain nonattainment
area requirements (i.e., anti-backsliding requirements) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS as specified under section 182 of the CAA, including RACT.
See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An area remains subject to the anti-backsliding
requirements for a revoked NAAQS until EPA determines that the five
statutory requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are met for a
revoked NAAQS.\2\ There are no effects on applicable OTR requirements
for areas within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Thus, the District of Columbia, as a state within the OTR,
remains subject to RACT requirements for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion
on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (``South
Coast II''). The D.C. Cir. Court found certain parts unreasonable
and vacated those provisions accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule continued
most of the RACT provisions and policy for RACT requirements under
section 182 and 184 of the CAA issued in the Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
required RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR.
EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications that
existing provisions continue to meet RACT, and/or negative declarations
stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment area covered by
a specific Control Technique Guideline (CTG) source category. States
must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT
submissions, in accordance with Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. Adequate documentation must support that states
have considered control technology that is economically and
technologically feasible in determining RACT, based on information that
is current at the time of development of the RACT SIP. EPA also
recognized that states may conclude in some cases that sources already
addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS
may not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone
NAAQS RACT requirement. See 80 FR 12278-12279 (March 6, 2015).

C. Applicability of RACT Requirements in the District of Columbia

    Since 1990, the District of Columbia implemented numerous RACT
controls throughout the District of Columbia to

meet the CAA RACT requirements under the 1-hour and the 1997 ozone
standards. The District of Columbia was first subject to NOX
RACT requirements as a serious (later reclassified to severe) ozone
nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and as a moderate
nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The District of
Columbia's first NOX RACT rules were adopted and codified as
Section 805 (Section 805) under Title 20 of the District of Columbia
Municipal Regulations (20 DCMR), Chapter 8--Asbestos, Sulfur and
Nitrogen Oxides, and adopted other supporting provisions in 20 DCMR
Chapter 1 (relating to definitions and abbreviations) and in Chapter 5
(relating to source monitoring and reporting). Section 805 was
originally effective in 1993 with amendments in 2000 and 2004. See 65
FR 81369 (December 26, 2000); 69 FR 77645 (December 28, 2004); and 69
FR 77647 (December 28, 2004). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the District of
Columbia revised and promulgated its RACT regulations and demonstrated
that it complied with the CAA RACT requirements in a SIP revision (1997
RACT SIP) approved by EPA on June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28447). The District
of Columbia has no outstanding ozone RACT requirements for the 1-hour
and 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the District of Columbia is classified
as marginal nonattainment and therefore has no RACT requirements due to
its designation and classification as an ozone nonattainment area.
However, because the District of Columbia is part of the OTR
established under section 184 of the CAA, the District of Columbia has
obligations under the OTR RACT requirements of CAA sections 184(b) and
182(f).
    RACT applies to major stationary sources of NOX and VOC
under each ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Because
the District of Columbia's NOX RACT SIP revision is the only
subject of this notice of proposed rulemaking, the VOC RACT
requirements in the District of Columbia will not be discussed further.

II. Summary of the District of Columbia's SIP Revision

A. Overview

    On August 29, 2018 and supplemented on December 19, 2018, DOEE
submitted a revision to the District of Columbia's SIP to address all
the requirements of NOX RACT set forth by the CAA under the
2008 ozone NAAQS (the 2008 NOX RACT Submission). This SIP
revision includes amendments to 20 DCMR, Chapter 8, sections 805.1
(Section 805.1, relating to applicability), and 805.4 (Section 805.4,
emissions limits for stationary combustion turbines) and to 20 DCMR
Chapter 1, Section 199 (Section 199, relating to definitions).

B. Main Components of the SIP Revision

    The District of Columbia's 2008 NOX RACT Submission
includes:
    1. New regulations for certain stationary combustion turbine-
cogeneration (or combined heat and power (CHP) systems) emissions
sources that have come on line at four major stationary sources of
NOX in the District of Columbia since the 1997 RACT SIP was
developed.\3\ The new regulations also set NOX RACT
emissions limits for any additional combustion turbine in the
categories regulated beyond those existing in the District of Columbia
on the date, December 14, 2018, the new emissions limits in the 2008
NOX RACT Submission were adopted. These regulatory changes
include changes in the applicability provisions of Section 805 and
include the addition of new definitions needed by the addition of or
revisions to the NOX emission limits for the recently
installed categories of combustion turbines. The former Section 805.4
only set NOX emissions limits for combustion turbines of
over 100 million British Thermal Units per hour (mmBTU per hour) heat
input burning fuel oil; the new regulations in the 2008 NOX
RACT Submission for stationary combustion turbines set NOX
limits for turbines over 50 mmBTU per hour burning fuel oil which are
as stringent or more stringent than the prior limits. Specifically,
these amendments to 20 DCMR, Chapter 8, include changes to
applicability in Section 805.1, emissions limits for stationary
combustion turbines in Section 805.4, and definitions in Section 199;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hereafter, ``combustion turbine'' will mean ``stationary
combustion turbine.'' As used in Section 805.4 and defined in 20
DCMR Chapter 1, Section 199, a ``stationary combustion turbine''
means that the combustion turbine is not self-propelled or intended
to be propelled while performing its function. It may, however, be
mounted on a vehicle for portability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Source-specific RACT determinations for three flares and one
auxiliary boiler that are located at the Blue Plains Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plant (BPAWTP) that are unique to the District of
Columbia. The DOEE opted to set the NOX RACT limits for
those sources by adding to the District of Columbia SIP those specific
NOX emission limitations, which the DOEE has determined are
NOX RACT, in an operating permit;
    3. For all other sources at major stationary sources of
NOX in the District of Columbia, a certification that the
NOX emissions limits found in Section 805, which were
implemented and approved into the District of Columbia's SIP under the
1-hour and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, are still RACT with the exception of:
(a) The revised emissions limits for stationary combustion turbines
found in Section 805.4; (b) the source-specific RACT determinations at
the BPAWTP; and (c) the other new regulatory provisions relating to
definitions and source monitoring; and
    4. Amendments to the existing Section 805.4 to remove carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions limits relating to combustion turbines of over
100 mmBTU per hour heat input burning fuel oil because there are no
longer any such emissions units in the District of Columbia.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the District of Columbia's SIP Revision

A. New Emissions Limits for Combustion Turbines and Conforming
Amendments

    The District of Columbia's NOX RACT SIP revision
contains a final rule amending 20 DCMR, Chapter 8, Section 805.4 to
amend the District of Columbia's NOX emission limits for
combustion turbines and for any duct burners or associated heat
recovery steam generators. Emissions limits are set for combustion
turbines depending upon the peak heat input rating of the combustion
turbine and type of fuel burned. The amendments also include the
addition of conforming definitions and abbreviations to the
applicability provisions of Section 805.1 to clarify that any
associated heat recovery steam generators and duct burners were subject
to Section 805. Further, the amendments amend Section 199 ``Definitions
And Abbreviations'' to add definitions for new terms found in Section
805.4 and to remove CO emissions limits for combustion turbines of over
100 mmBTU per hour heat input burning fuel oil (discussed further in
section III. D. of this document).
1. Amendments to Section 805.1 Applicability of Section 805
    Section 805.4, prior to the 2008 NOX RACT Submission,
established NOX RACT standards for combustion turbines with
heat input capacities of 100 mmBTU per hour or more. Since the final
rulemaking of Section 805 published on April 16, 2004, all

combustion turbines located in the District of Columbia with heat input
capacities of 100 mmBTU per hour or more have been decommissioned.
Volume 65, No. 30 of the District of Columbia Register (DCR), page
007876, July 27, 2018. However, several new combustion turbines with
heat input capacities less than 100 mmBTU per hour and in some cases
associated heat recovery steam generators and duct burners have been
installed at major stationary sources of NOX since that
time. The amendments to Section 805.4 in the 2008 NOX RACT
Submission set NOX emission limits for such smaller units,
and the DOEE now seeks to include the amendments into the District of
Columbia's SIP.
    Sections 805.1(a) and 805.1(a)(2) regarding applicability of
Section 805 were amended to specify that Section 805 also applies to
any heat recovery steam generators and duct burners associated with
combustion turbines which are part of a turbine and to combustion
turbines of any size at a major stationary source of NOX.
EPA believes this change is approvable as the amended applicability
provisions clearly specify that all combustion turbines and any
associated heat recovery steam generators and duct burners at major
stationary sources of NOX are covered by the NOX
emission limits now set by Section 805.4.
2. New Emissions Limits for Combustion Turbines and Associated Heat
Recovery Steam Generators and Duct Burners
    The DOEE amended Section 805.4 to establish presumptive
NOX RACT emissions limits for combustion turbines with heat
input capacities less than 100 mmBTU per hour. The DOEE set
NOX RACT limits for stationary combustion turbines based on
a review of emission levels achieved in practice at existing stationary
combustion turbines in the District of Columbia, emission limits set by
preconstruction permits, the new source performance standards (NSPS) in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), Part 60, subpart
KKKK Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines (NSPS
subpart KKKK) and upon recommendations in an Ozone Transport Commission
(OTC) model rule.\4\ The DOEE revised 20 DMCR Section 805.4 to
establish these levels achieved in practice, NSPS or permit limits as
presumptive NOX RACT emission limits for the District of
Columbia's SIP. Most of the emissions limits are set in parts per
million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) corrected to 15 percent excess
oxygen (@15% O2) or (ppmvd @15% O2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OTC recommendations are found in a ``model rule''
available on-line at https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/OTC%20Model%20Rule%20-%20HEDD%20Turbines%20Final.pdf
(last accessed and downloaded March 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 805.4 specifies that the applicability of its
NOX emissions limits shall be determined therein solely upon
the peak heat input rating of the combustion turbine without inclusion
of any additional heat input from associated heat recovery steam
generators or duct burners when determining the peak heat input to the
combustion turbine. Restricting applicability based solely on the
combustion turbine's heat input rating is the same as the applicability
provisions of the NSPS subpart KKKK. See 40 CFR 60.4305. The applicable
emissions limit depends on the date that construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced, and whether duct burners of associated heat
recovery steam generators are used.
    Under the revised Section 805.4 submitted in the 2008
NOX RACT Submission the NOX emission limits for
combustion turbines are 25 ppmvd @15% O2 when burning
gaseous fuels except for combustion turbines under 10 mmBTU per hour
heat input capacity burning only natural gas. For units with heat input
ratings of less than or equal to 50 mmBTU per hour, the Section 805.4
limits are 25 ppmvd @15% O2 when burning gaseous fuels and
of 42 ppmvd @15% O2 when burning liquid fuels; these limits
are more stringent than the NSPS subpart KKKK standards when burning
natural gas and when burning ``fuels other than natural gas,''
respectively. For units with heat input ratings of greater than 50
mmBTU per hour, the NOX emission limit is 74 ppmvd @15%
O2 when burning liquid fuels which is the same as that found
in NSPS subpart KKKK. When construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced on or after February 18, 2005, this 74 ppmvd
limit also applies. For any combustion turbine of greater than 50 mmBTU
per hour heat input capacity for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced before February 18, 2005, the emission limit
is twenty hundredths (0.20) pounds per million BTU heat input (calendar
day average) when burning any fuel or combinations if the duct burners
are in use.
    The NOX emission limits in Section 805.4 before adoption
of the limits in the 2008 NOX RACT submission were 75 ppmvd
@15% O2 and applied to oil-fired, combustion turbines with a
heat input over 100 mmBTU per hour. The amended Section 805.4 sets a
NOX emission limit of 74 ppmvd @15% O2 for
stationary combustion turbines of greater than 50 mmBTU per hour heat
input capacity when burning liquid fuels. Oil would constitute a liquid
fuel under the new definition (discussed in the next section of this
document) found in Section 199. Therefore, the amended Section 805.4
sets a limit which is slightly more stringent for oil-fired stationary
combustion turbines of greater than 100 mmBTU per hour heat input
capacity than what existed before adoption of the 2008 NOX
RACT Submission. EPA finds that revising Section 805.4 with the
regulatory changes of the 2008 NOX RACT Submission
strengthens the SIP with respect to oil-fired stationary combustion
turbines of greater than 100 mmBTU per hour heat input capacity.
    When burning a mixture of fuels, the gaseous fuels limit applies if
the percentage of heat input from gaseous fuels is greater than or
equal to 50 percent; if the heat input from liquid fuels is greater
than 50 percent, the liquid fuel limit applies. This provision is
analogous to the NSPS subpart KKKK provisions for mixed fuel firing (40
CFR 60.4325) except when Section 805.4 specifies ``gaseous fuels'' and
``liquid fuels'' the NSPS specifies ``natural gas'' and ``fuels other
than natural gas,'' respectively.
    The District of Columbia has one facility with combustion turbines
that can burn ``digestor gas'' which is made by treating sewage. Under
the NSPS subpart KKKK such a unit would have to comply with the NSPS
limits for ``fuels other than natural gas'' when burning ``digestor
gas.'' Under the revised Section 805.4 a combustion turbine burning
``digestor gas'' must meet the same NOX limits for
combustion turbines burning natural gas or any other gaseous fuel due
to the definition adopted for ``gaseous fuel.''
3. Definitions Added to Section 199
    The amended regulations also add definitions to Section 199
``Definitions and Abbreviations'' for ``duct burner,'' ``gaseous
fuel,'' ``heat recovery steam generating unit,'' ``liquid fuel,''
``natural gas'' and ``combustion turbine.'' See Section 199.1. EPA
believes that these definitions are necessary to define what exact
sources are subject to Section 805.4 and when specific limits apply by
fuel type.
    With two exceptions, the definitions added to Section 199.1 are the
same as those found in the NSPS subpart KKKK (40 CFR 60.4420). The two
exceptions are the definitions for ``gaseous fuel''

and ``liquid fuel.'' The NSPS subpart KKKK needs to define ``natural
gas'' because the NSPS subpart KKKK distinguishes NOX
emissions limits for stationary combustion turbines burning only
natural gas from units burning ``fuels other than natural gas.''
Section 199.1 defines ``gaseous fuel'' with the criterion of a fuel
that is in ``a gaseous state at standard atmospheric temperature and
pressure under ordinary conditions.'' This definition includes fuels
that under the NSPS Subpart KKKK would be a fuel other than natural gas
and subject to higher limits than those applicable to units burning
natural gas. Under the Section 199.1 amendment, ``natural gas'' is a
subset of ``gaseous fuel.'' Section 199.1 defines ``liquid fuel'' as
``any fuel that maintains a liquid state at standard atmospheric
temperature and pressure.'' The net effect of these differences in
definitions is that Section 805.4 sets more stringent limits than NSPS
subpart KKKK for some fuels other than natural gas. The amended
regulations in the 2008 NOX RACT Submission also add to
Section 199.2 the abbreviation ``ppmvd'' to mean ``Parts Per Million by
Volume Dry Basis.''
4. Applicable Affected Source Threshold
    EPA only requires that when implementing a revised ozone NAAQS, a
state must review and update NOX RACT only for those
stationary sources of NOX that are ``major threshold'' with
an area's classification under the revised ozone NAAQS. Because the
District of Columbia has been designated as a marginal nonattainment
area in the OTR the RACT obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS applies
only to major stationary sources of 100 tpy PTE or more of
NOX. The District of Columbia's emissions limitations for
stationary combustion turbines in the 2008 NOX RACT
Submission apply to combustion turbines at stationary sources with a
PTE of 25 tpy or more of NOX because the District of
Columbia retains the 25 tpy PTE applicability threshold found in
Section 805.1 required under the District of Columbia's severe
classification under the 1-hour NAAQS. In the preamble to the proposed
rule for the amendments to Section 805, the District of Columbia
provided notice that then proposed (now final) combustion turbine
emissions limits would apply to any combustion turbines located at a
stationary source with the PTE of 25 tpy or more of NOX.
Volume 65, No. 30, of the District of Columbia Register, Page 007877,
July 27, 2018. This makes the 2008 NOX RACT Submission more
stringent than that required for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
5. Other Provisions
    Section 805.4 sets a maintenance standard for combustion turbines
with a heat input rating less than or equal to 10 mmBTU per hour and
fired exclusively on natural gas. Section 805.4 also has a requirement
that any combustion turbine subject to Section 805 shall always be
maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions, including during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
    Additionally, Section 805.4 prohibits any combustion turbine fired
on coal or a synthetic fuel derived from coal and requires any
combustion turbine designed to be fired on any solid fuel other than
coal or a synthetic fuel derived from any other solid than coal to have
a case-by-case RACT determined pursuant to Section 805.7 (already in
the SIP) for approval by EPA as a revision to the District of
Columbia's SIP.
6. EPA Analysis
    The DOEE NOX RACT regulation is based on current
technologies for combustion turbines, without the addition of add-on
controls such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). DOEE's review was
based on a review of emission levels achieved in practice by the
existing sources within the District of Columbia and by sources subject
to the NSPS subpart KKKK or by sources subject to a lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER) determination limits set by a preconstruction
permit.\5\ The District of Columbia's limits were set based upon the
comparability to those established for new units according to the NSPS
Subpart KKKK or permits for units with heat input ratings exceeding 50
mmBTU per hour. For units with heat input ratings less than or equal to
50 mmBTU per hour, the DOEE set limits more stringent than the NSPS
Subpart KKKK standards based upon 2010 recommendations made by the OTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 171 defines LAER as the most stringent rate of
emissions based on the following: (1) The most stringent emissions
limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any
State for such class or category of stationary source, unless the
owner or operator of the proposed stationary source demonstrates
that such limitations are not achievable; or (2) The most stringent
emissions limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of stationary sources. In no event shall the application of
the term permit a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit
any pollutant in excess of the amount allowable under an applicable
NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOEE evaluated technically feasible add-on controls, such as
SCR, as RACT for this source category but determined that heavy
investment in additional end-of-pipe controls to this level is not
economically feasible or cost effective with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The Department estimated a cost per ton of NOX
reductions of $13,794 for small turbines (in the 5-megawatt range)
currently found in the District of Columbia.
    EPA finds that the RACT determination provided by the District of
Columbia is reasonable and appropriately considered technically and
economically feasible controls while setting lowest achievable limits
to adequately meet RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these
categories of combustion turbines. EPA finds that the District of
Columbia has set presumptive RACT emissions limits for stationary
combustion turbines for existing major stationary sources of
NOX in the District of Columbia. EPA finds that revising
Section 805.4 with the regulatory changes of the 2008 NOX
RACT Submission strengthens the SIP with respect to oil-fired
stationary combustion turbines of greater than 100 mm BTU per hour heat
input capacity and can be approved.

B. District of Columbia Water Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant Source Specific NOX RACT

    The DOEE issued a permit to District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority (DC Water) to construct and operate new biosolids handling
facilities located at the BPAWTP. The equipment to be installed and
operated included: (1) A main process train that includes four thermal
hydrolysis process trains (for thermally hydrolyzed sludge digestion)
and two emergency flares rated at 126 mmBTU per hour heat input for
each firing digestor gas, and (2) a CHP system that includes three
stationary combustion turbines each with a duct burner, one auxiliary
boiler of 62.52 mmBTU per hour heat input, and one ``siloxane
destruction flare'' rated at 6.14 mmBTU per hour. The two emergency
flares of the main process train and the auxiliary boiler and the
siloxane destruction flare in the CHP system emit NOX and
are subject to the NOX RACT source specific determination
requirements
    For the CHP system and the two emergency flares of the main process
train, DOEE issued the BPAWTP a permit to operate on April 20, 2018
(April 20, 2018 operating permit) pursuant to 20 DCMR Section 200.2.
The equipment covered by the April 20, 2018 operating permit covered
the combustion turbines and associated duct burners plus the auxiliary
boiler

and flares that burn digester gas.\6\ The NOX emission
limits for the permitted equipment were established through a non-
attainment new source review process in 2011/2012 and the installed
emission controls were determined to be LAER at that time. Prior to
issuing the final April 20, 2018 operating permit, the DOEE conducted a
review of the emissions limits and determined that these combustion
turbines, heat recovery steam generators with duct burners (covered
under the amended Section 805.4), and an auxiliary boiler are still
among the best performing units in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
for broadly similar applications and are therefore at least as
stringent as RACT.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NOX RACT for the three 46.3 mmBTU per hour
combustion turbines and heat recovery steam generators each equipped
with a 21 mmBTU per hour heat input duct burner is set under the
revised Section 805.4.
    \7\ BACT stands for best available control technology and is a
requirement for certain preconstruction permits under CAA Title I,
Part C (prevention of significant deterioration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part of the review of the April 20, 2018 operating permit included
a reevaluation of the NOX limits for the digester gas-fired
auxiliary boiler and the three flares at the facility based upon actual
performance. The DOEE concluded that, due to higher concentrations of
ammonia in the digester gas compared to that resulting from other
sewage digester systems, the three flares and the boiler would each
inherently emit more NOX than the typical flares and
auxiliary boilers fired with digestor gas. The DOEE concluded that this
is due to the difference in digestion processes. The BPAWTP uses a
different digestion technology--thermally hydrolyzed sludge digestion--
which is the first of its kind in the United States. As such, even
though the BPAWTP uses a flare used in other digester gas applications,
the NOX levels exiting the flare are higher due to the
increased fuel-bound nitrogen. Based upon this 2018 review of the
performance of the auxiliary boiler and the three flares, the DOEE
concluded that the NOX emission limits and associated
control technologies in the April 20, 2018 permit for the digester gas-
fired auxiliary boiler and the three flares at the facility meet or
exceed RACT requirements because these limits were based upon the
DOEE's LAER, which by definition cannot be less stringent than RACT and
often results in more stringent control than RACT.
    With the 2008 NOX RACT Submission, the DOEE submitted a
redacted version of the April 20, 2018 operating permit, which includes
only those provisions related to the NOX RACT determination.
A copy of the redacted April 20, 2018 operating permit is in the docket
for this proposed action. The emissions limits, testing or reporting
requirements for other pollutants such as particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide have been redacted so as not to be submitted
for inclusion in the SIP. The following Table 1 provides a summary of
the NOX emission limits.

                           Table 1--NOX Limits for BPAWTP Auxiliary Boiler and Flares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Siloxane destruction      Emergency flares
                                        Auxiliary boiler (AB)           flare (SF)                (each)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Input capacity--mmBTU per hour  62.52 on DG................  6.14 on DG............  126 on DG.
                                     61.79 on NG................
NOX limit (pounds NOX/mmBTU).......  0.034 on DG................  0.06 on DG............  0.101 on DG.
                                     0.032 on NG................
Mass limit NOX pounds per hour.....  2.11 on any percentage of    0.37..................  12.72.
                                      DG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``DG'' means digestor gas; ``NG'' means natural gas.

    EPA finds that the RACT determination provided by the District of
Columbia is reasonable and appropriately considered technically and
economically feasible controls while setting lowest achievable limits
to adequately meet RACT on a source specific basis under the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for these emissions units. EPA finds that source
specific limits are appropriate because the source category, related to
municipal wastewater treatment, is unique within the District of
Columbia. These limits were set on technology consistent with LAER
which essentially reflects the lowest rate in any SIP or achieved in
practice and are based upon the actual performance of the emissions
units.

C. Certification of Other Provisions in Section 805

    Prior to the amendments submitted with the 2008 NOX RACT
Submission, Section 805 contained the District of Columbia's
NOX RACT controls as amended in 2004 for implementation and
approval into the District of Columbia SIP under the 1-hour and the
1997 ozone NAAQS. The District of Columbia's 2008 NOX RACT
Submission includes a certification that the controls of the 2004
version of Section 805 are still RACT except for those sources for
which the District of Columbia submitted new NOX RACT
emissions limits in the 2008 NOX RACT Submission. These
sources are: (1) The new limits for combustion turbines at several
major NOX sources (see section III. A. in this document);
and (2) the digester gas equipment at one major NOX source
(see section III. B. in this document regarding the BPAWTP).
    Section 805 was originally adopted in 1993 and amended in 2000 and
2004. The District of Columbia's NOX RACT emissions limits
are specified by source groups. Table 2 lists the rulemaking history of
District of Columbia's previously adopted NOX RACT controls,
and Table 2 lists the source groups covered by Section 805. In the 2008
RACT Submission, the District of Columbia is certifying that with
certain exceptions (the amendments to Section 805.4 and the unit
specific limits at the BPAWTP), Section 805 continues to represent the
lowest emission limits based on currently available and economically
feasible control technology for the source categories and, therefore,
meets the RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for major
NOX stationary sources as required by CAA sections 184(b)(2)
and 182(f).

        Table 2--District of Columbia's NOX RACT Controls--Rulemaking History of SIP Approved Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State effective    Federal Register   Federal Register
       Regulation 20 DCMR               Submittal               date               date              notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
805............................  Original 1-hour ozone   Nov. 19, 1993 and  Dec. 26, 2000....  65 FR 81369.
                                  submittal.              Dec. 8, 2000.
805............................  Minor clarifications..  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
805 and 199.1..................  Set applicability       April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77647.
                                  threshold to 25 tpy
                                  NOX--severe
                                  nonattainment area
                                  under 1-hour NAAQS.
805............................  Certify as RACT under   September 22,      June 16, 2009....  74 FR 28447.
                                  1997 ozone NAAQS.       2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 3--District of Columbia's NOX RACT Controls--Rulemaking History of SIP Approved Provisions by Source
                                                    Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State effective   Federal effective   Federal Register
       Regulation 20 DCMR          Title of regulation         date              date             notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
805.1..........................  Fuel-burning equipment  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  with an input
                                  capacity of 100 mmBTU
                                  per hour or greater.
805.5 & 805.8..................  Fuel-burning equipment  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  with an input
                                  capacity equal to or
                                  greater than 20 mmBTU
                                  per hour, but less
                                  than 50 mmBTU per
                                  hour.
805.1 & 805.8..................  Fuel-burning equipment  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  with an input
                                  capacity equal to or
                                  greater than 50 but
                                  less than mmBTU per
                                  hour.
805.4..........................  Combustion turbines...  Nov. 27, 2018....  See Sections D.1.  See Sections D.1.
                                                                             above and D.4.     above and D.4.
                                                                             below .          below .
805.1..........................  Asphalt concrete plant  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  with a PTE 25 tpy or
                                  greater.
805.1..........................  All other fuel burning  April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  equipment with a PTE
                                  of 25 tpy of NOX or
                                  greater.
805.1..........................  Stationary internal     April 16, 2004...  Dec. 28, 2004....  69 FR 77645.
                                  combustion engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Most recent revision or amendment.
 The revisions to Section 805.4 discussed in sections D.1. above and D.4. below completely revise Section
  805.4. EPA action of these revisions is the subject of this action.

    Section 805 (as amended) provides presumptive NOX limits
for major stationary sources of NOX but also provides for a
case-by-case RACT determination process. The DOEE evaluated their
stationary source inventory and current controls against RACT emission
limits of other States. The DOEE compared the SIPs of other similarly-
situated States in the Eastern United States (Virginia, Maryland, North
Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts) to the District of Columbia's current emissions limits
and found that DOEE's Section 805 limits were in the same range. Based
upon such considerations, the DOEE concluded that, when combined with
the amendments to Section 805 and the source specific NOX
RACT determination for the BPAWTP, that no further controls were needed
to meet RACT.
    In combination with the amendments to Sections 199 and 805
regarding certain combustion turbines and related equipment (evaluated
in sections III.A of this document) and with the source-specific
NOX RACT determinations for the flares and auxiliary boiler
at BPAWTP (evaluated in sections III.B of this document), EPA proposes
to find that the previously adopted RACT controls continue to represent
NOX RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS required under sections
184(b)(2) and 182(f).

D. Removal of Prior Emissions Limits for Combustion Turbines Over 100
mmBTU per Hour

    The District of Columbia's amendment to Section 805.4 removes
emission limits of 75 ppmvd NOX, corrected to 15% excess
oxygen for oil-fired, combustion turbines with a heat input over 100
mmBTU per hour from the SIP in the former Section 805.4(a); the former
Section 805.4 also restricted CO emissions not to exceed 50 ppmvd @15%
O2 at any operating condition, for a one (1) hour average.
    Regarding NOX emissions, the revised Section 805.4 sets
a lower emissions limit for stationary combustion turbines of this
size. The revised Section 805.4(a) sets a lower NOX limit of
74 @15% O2 for any combustion turbine with heat input rating
greater than 50 mmBTU per hour burning any combination of liquid fuels.
    The revised rule also removes the exemption for low utilization
turbines--those operated for less than 500 hours per year. Thus, the
NOX limits set in Section 805.4 apply. If any combustion
turbines over 100 mmBTU per hour are installed in the District of
Columbia in the future such that the PTE increase is over 25 tpy
NOX, the District of Columbia SIP major source permitting
program requires an emissions rate of LAER and offsetting
NOX emissions at a ratio of 1.3:1. See 20 DCMR Chapter 2,
Section 204 (Permit Requirements for Sources Affecting Non-attainment
Areas), which is approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.470(c).
    For CO emissions, there are no longer any units over 100 mmBTU per
hour heat input in the District of Columbia. Therefore, this change
will not result in relaxing an existing emissions limitation applicable
to any existing emissions unit at a major stationary source.
Furthermore, the CO levels in the

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD area are well below the CO
NAAQS of 40 CFR 50.8. The maximum value recorded at any ambient air
quality monitor in the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD core
based statistical area is only 27 percent (2.6 ppm CO) of the 9.5 ppm
(8-hour average) NAAQS and less than 8 percent of the 35 ppm (1-hour
average) NAAQS.
    For CO, any new stationary combustion turbine or turbines added in
the future that are by themselves a major stationary source of CO or
would constitute a significant net emissions increase at an existing
major stationary source of CO (or nitrogen dioxide) would be required
to obtain a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit under
40 CFR 52.499 and 52.21. The PSD permit would require best available
control technology.
    EPA finds that removal of the CO limits will not hinder or impede
attainment or maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the District of Columbia.
As far as the ozone or nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, EPA concludes that the
replacement of the former 75 ppmvd NOX limits with the 74
ppmvd limits applicable to liquid fuel fired stationary combustion
turbines will be as protective of these NAAQS.

E. Summary

    EPA finds that the District of Columbia's 2008 NOX RACT
Submission is reasonable and demonstrates that the District has adopted
air pollution control strategies that represent RACT for the purposes
of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for all major
stationary sources of NOX in the District in accordance with
the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements
Rule, and the latest available information. EPA finds that the District
of Columbia's SIP implements RACT with respect to all existing major
stationary sources of NOX.
    EPA also finds that the proposed revisions to previously SIP
approved RACT requirements will result in equivalent or additional
reductions in NOX emissions and should not interfere with
any applicable requirement or reasonable further progress with the
NAAQS or interfere with other applicable CAA requirements in section
110(l) of the CAA.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the District of Columbia's 2008 RACT
Submission on the basis that the District of Columbia has met the
NOX RACT requirements under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS per
CAA sections 182(f) and 184(b)(2) for the reasons explained in this
notice. EPA is proposing to approve source specific NOX RACT
determinations for the BPAWTP and the amendments to sections 199.1,
199.2, 805.1 and 805.4 of 20 DCMR discussed in sections III. A. III. D.
and V. A. of this document.
    The District of Columbia's SIP revision is based on: (1)
Certification that for certain categories of sources, previously
adopted RACT controls in the District of Columbia's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 ozone NAAQS
continue to be technically and economically feasible controls, and
continue to represent RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation
purposes; (2) the adoption of new or more stringent regulations or
controls into the District of Columbia's SIP that represent presumptive
RACT control levels for certain categories of sources; and (3) source
specific emissions limits set for flares and an auxiliary boiler
serving the BPAWTP. EPA is proposing to remove, in accordance with
section 110 of the CAA, provisions setting carbon monoxide emission
limits for a category of stationary combustion turbines. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing for certain
categories of NOX emissions at major stationary sources of
NOX emissions to incorporate by reference both regulations
adopted by the District of Columbia and a source-specific RACT
determinations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS found within a
preconstruction permit. The amendments to and revision of 20 DCMR
Chapters 1 and 8 are specified in Section V. A. of this document; the
source specific information is provided in Section V. B of this
document.
    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

A. Amendments to 20 District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (20
DCMR)

    1. Specifically, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into
40 CFR 52.470(c): Amendments to 20 District of Columbia Municipal
Regulations, Chapter 1, sections 199.1 and 199.2. These amendments
include adding definitions in Section 199.1 for ``Duct burner,''
``Gaseous fuel,'' Heat recovery steam generator,'' ``Liquid fuel,''
``Natural gas,'' and ``Stationary combustion turbine,'' and include an
amendment to Section 199.2 to define the abbreviation ``ppmvd.''
    2. Amendments to 20 District of Columbia Municipal Regulations,
Chapter 8, sections 805.1 and 805.4 adopted by the District of Columbia
on November 14, 2018 and effective December 14, 2018 as published in
Volume 65, Number 51 of the District of Columbia Register on December
14, 2018. These amendments would include:
    (1) Revising sections 805.1(a) and Section 805.1(a)(1);
    (2) Revising Section 805.1(a)(1) to remove NOX emissions
limits for stationary combustion turbines which have an energy input
capacity of one hundred million (100,000,000) BTU and adding
NOX emissions limitations for any stationary combustion
turbine which commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
after February 18, 2005 and has a heat input rating greater than fifty
million (50,000,000) BTU per hour;
    3. Revising Section 805.1(a)(2) to remove CO emissions limits for
stationary combustion turbines which have an energy input capacity of
one hundred million (100,000,000) BTU per hour and adding
NOX emissions limitations for any stationary combustion
turbine which commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or before February 18, 2005 and has a heat input rating greater than
fifty million (50,000,000) BTU per hour;
    4. Adding a new Section 805.1(a)(3) to set NOX emission
limitations for any stationary combustion turbines with a heat input
rating less than or equal to fifty million (50,000,000) BTU per hour;
    5. Adding a new Section 805.1(a)(4) to set NOX emission
limitations for certain stationary combustion turbines with a heat
input rating less than or equal to ten million (10,000,000) BTU per
hour;
    6. Adding new sections 805.1(a)(5)-(7) to add new restrictions on
stationary combustion turbines;
    7. Amending Section 805.4(b) to replace requirements for stationary
combustion turbines with an energy input capacity of one hundred
million (100,000,000) BTU per hour or greater which is operated for
less than five hundred (500) hours per year with testing and continuous
monitoring

requirements for any person required to comply with Section 805.4.
    These regulatory changes to Section 805.4 and Section 199 were
adopted on November 27, 2018 and effective on the date of publication,
December 14, 2018, in the District of Columbia Register (Vol. 65,
Number 51, page 013499, December 14, 2018).

B. Source Specific Provisions for the BPAWTP

    Specifically, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into 40
CFR 52.470(d) certain portions of Permit (No. 6372-C2/O) to Construct
and Operate New Biosolids Handling Facilities issued to District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority as redacted by the District of
Columbia:
    1. The first paragraph citing the pertinent permitting regulations
and listing (redacted) the following significant components: One (1)
Auxiliary Boiler (AB) rated at 62.52 mmBTU per hour (HHV) heat input,
firing DG, One (1) Siloxane Destruction Flare (SF) rated at 6.14 MMBTU
per hour heal input, firing DG; and Two (2) Emergency Flares rated at
126 mmBTU per hour heat input each, firing DG.
    2. The NOX emissions limits listed in the table found in
permit condition ``j.'' for the Auxiliary Boiler (AB), Siloxane
Destruction Flare (SF) and Two (2) Emergency Flares. The hourly
NOX emission limits for the Auxiliary Boiler (AB), Siloxane
Destruction Flare (SF) and Two (2) Emergency Flares listed in Table 2
(as redacted) found under Condition III.
    3. Conditions III.b.1.A.; III.b.3. A. and B.; III.b.3. C.i., iii
and iv.; III.b.3.D.; III.b.3.E. except that relating to carbon
monoxide/CO; III.b.3.F. except ``and CO''; III.b.3.G, iv. and v. except
the provision ``Failure to demonstrate compliance through the testing
may result in enforcement action.''; III.b.4.A.; III.b.4.B. iv. and v.;
III.b.5. as redacted to strike ``in addition to complying with
Condition II(f)''; III.d., III.d.1.A; III.d.2.D; III.d.3.A. only the
portion ``Within 60 days of initial startup and once every five years
thereafter, the Permittee shall conduct a Department-approved
compliance source test at multiple loads of EF-l, EF-2, and SF in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 or a similar protocol acceptable to the
Department, to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations
contained in Condition III(d)(1) of this permit;'' III.d.3.B as
redacted to exclude ``though additional testing may be required at
other times pursuant to Condition II(d)(2)''; III.d.3.C. (i), (iii) and
(iv); III.d.3.D.; III.d.3.H.(iv); III.d.3.H.(v) except ``Failure to
demonstrate compliance through the test may result in enforcement
action.''; III.d.4.A. except ``including records of visual
inspections,''; III.d.4.B. (ii) except ``and CO''; III.d.4.B. (iv);
and, III.d.5.A. as redacted to exclude ``in addition to complying with
Condition II(f)''.
    4. This permit was issued April 20, 2018.

VI. 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, regarding the NOX RACT
SIP for the District of Columbia under 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 29, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-19669 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P