Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 70929-70940 [2011-29595]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
on people and the economy, and to offer
ideas on how to streamline or improve
them. This request for information will
inform the USACE’s decision on
whether adjustment to the regulation is
necessary and appropriate, and whether
additional guidance, education, or
outreach would better assist the
Regulation’s users, agencies, and the
public to address critical issues.
The URL for a Web site that includes
the Regulations, as well as all of the
Corps Regulatory Program’s current
regulations and supporting program
data and information is https://
www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/
reg_materials.aspx. Furthermore, each
of the 38 Corps districts has issued local
public notices announcing the
publication of this Federal Register
notice and the request for comments.
The Corps will evaluate all comments
received to develop its list of review
priorities, and will publish a notice in
the Federal Register that summarizes
the comments received and lists the
priorities. The Web site will be updated
as proposed revisions and final
revisions to its regulations occur.
Please email your response to the
questions below to
regulatory.review@usace.army.mil and
be sure to number your responses in
association with each question. These
questions are not intended to be
exhaustive, and respondents are
encouraged to raise additional issues or
make suggestions unrelated to these
questions. Respondents are also
encouraged to share examples and a
detailed explanation of how the
suggestion will support the goals of the
Regulations review process. We are
seeking public comment for a period of
60 days ending January 17, 2012, after
which it will revise the plan and make
it available to the public.
1. How should the Corps modify its
Regulations to ensure that they are
serving their stated purpose efficiently
and effectively? Please provide specific
recommendations on edits that could be
made and suggestions on appropriate
outreach and timing.
2. How can we reduce burdens and
maintain flexibility for participants in
the regulatory process in a way that will
promote the protection of waters of the
United States via the improvement of
the Regulations?
3. How can the process set forth in the
Regulations better achieve simplified
and efficient outcomes?
4. How can the Regulations be
changed to better harmonize with, be
consistent with, and coordinate
effectively with, other federal
regulations and environmental review
procedures?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
5. How can we ensure that
information developed to support
findings under the Regulations are
guided by objective scientific evidence?
6. Are there better ways to encourage
public participation and an open
exchange of views as part of the
regulatory review? Please cite specific
areas where improvements could be
made and indicate what tools or
mechanisms might be made available to
achieve this goal.
7. The NWP program allows for
comment and periodic review during
the reauthorization process every five
years. How else can the periodic review
of the NWP program be utilized to
comply with this E.O.?
8. How else might we modify, clarify,
or improve the Regulations to reduce
burdens, promote predictability, and
increase efficiency?
Authority
We are proposing to improve the
Regulations and comply with the
direction to perform a periodic
regulatory review with the existing
reauthorization of the NWP program,
which were issued under the authority
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Section 103 of
the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1413).
Dated: November 10, 2011.
Approved.
Michael G. Ensch,
Chief, Operations and Regulatory, Directorate
of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 2011–29633 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0913; FRL–9492–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the District of Columbia
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the District of Columbia
through the District Department of the
Environment (DDOE) on October 27,
2011 that addresses regional haze for the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70929
first implementation period. This
revision addresses the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
rules that require states to prevent any
future, and remedy any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Regional Haze plan submitted
by the District of Columbia satisfies
these requirements of the CAA. EPA is
also proposing to approve this revision
as meeting the infrastructure
requirements relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 16, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2011–0913 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0913,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011–
0913. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70930
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the District Department of
the Environment, 1200 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by
email at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov.
On
October 27, 2011, the DDOE submitted
a revision to its SIP to address Regional
Haze for the first implementation
period. Throughout this document,
whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used,
we mean EPA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed
action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) Long-Term Strategy
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA’s analysis of District of
Columbia’s regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the Long-Term
Strategy and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of
Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to
Visibility Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. BART
C. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter, which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range 1 in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions (64 FR 35714, July 1,
1999).
B. Background Information
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 2 which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’
On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (45 FR 80084). These
regulations represented the first phase
in addressing visibility impairment.
EPA deferred action on regional haze
that emanates from a variety of sources
until monitoring, modeling, and
scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and
visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR
revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR
69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
Section II of this notice. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.
Section 51.308(b) requires states to
submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
states, tribal governments, and various
Federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic Region Air
Management Association (MARAMA),
the Northeast States for Coordination
Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU) RPO.
MANE–VU is a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments,
and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility,
and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the
United States. Member states and tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
governments include: Connecticut,
Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation,
Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe,
and Vermont.
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require
that within three years of promulgation
of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that its
SIP, among other requirements,
‘‘contains adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other types of
emission activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State to protect visibility.’’
Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires
that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable
requirements of part C of (Subchapter I)
(relating to visibility protection).’’
EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,’’ recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the
visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission
of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by
sections 169A and 169B of the CAA.
EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled
‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state
could meet such visibility requirements
through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s
rationale supporting this
recommendation was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that
through this process states would
coordinate on emissions controls to
protect visibility on an interstate basis.
The common understanding was that, as
a result of this collaborative
environment, each state would take
action to achieve the emissions
reductions relied upon by other states in
their reasonable progress
demonstrations under the RHR. This
interpretation is consistent with the
requirement in the RHR that a state
participating in a regional planning
process must include ‘‘all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process.’’ See, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70931
The regional haze program, as
reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range
transport of pollutants for visibility and
encourages states to work together to
develop plans to address haze. The
regulations explicitly require each state
to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission
reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for
neighboring Class I areas. States
working together through a regional
planning process, are required to
address an agreed upon share of their
contribution to visibility impairment in
the Class I areas of their neighbors. See,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze
SIPs will contain measures that will
achieve these emissions reductions and
will meet the applicable visibility
related requirements of section
110(a)(2).
As a result of the regional planning
efforts in the MANE–VU, all states in
the MANE–VU region contributed
information to a Technical Support
System (TSS) which provides an
analysis of the causes of haze, and the
levels of contribution from all sources
within each state to the visibility
degradation of each Class I area. The
MANE–VU states consulted in the
development of reasonable progress
goals, using the products of this
technical consultation process to codevelop their reasonable progress goals
for the MANE–VU Class I areas. The
modeling done by MANE–VU relied on
assumptions regarding emissions over
the relevant planning period and
embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in
each of the states in MANE–VU,
including reductions from BART and
other measures to be adopted as part of
the state’s long term strategy for
addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional
haze SIPs that have been prepared by
the states in the MANE–VU region are
based, in part, on the emissions
reductions from nearby states that were
agreed on through the MANE–VU
process.
The District of Columbia submitted a
Regional Haze SIP on October 27, 2011,
to address the requirements of the RHR.
On December 6, 2007 and January 11,
2008, the District of Columbia submitted
its 1997 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure
SIP. On August 25, 2008 and September
22, 2008, the District of Columbia
submitted its 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. On September 21,
2009, the District of Columbia submitted
an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA will act on these
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70932
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
submittals in a separate rulemaking
action.
In the October 27, 2011 submittal, the
District of Columbia indicated that its
Regional Haze SIP would meet the
requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has
reviewed the District of Columbia’s
Regional Haze SIP and, as explained in
section IV of this action, proposes to
find that the District of Columbia’s
Regional Haze submittal meets the
portions of the requirements of the CAA
sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
II. What are the requirements for the
regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as
the principal metric or unit for
expressing visibility. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility
expressed in deciviews is determined by
using air quality measurements to
estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light
extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure
for tracking progress in improving
visibility than light extinction itself
because each deciview change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most
people can detect a change in visibility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
at one deciview.3 The deciview is used
in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the
national visibility goal), defining
baseline, current, and natural
conditions, and tracking changes in
visibility. The regional haze SIPs must
contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by anthropogenic
air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources
of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, states must calculate the
degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each
regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five
years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the
RHR requires states to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over
a specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, states must
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of
comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility
conditions in documents entitled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility conditions under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–004 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance’’).
3 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725,
July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two
distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and
one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class
I area for each (approximately) 10-year
implementation period. The RHR does
not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected
sources. States must demonstrate in
their SIPs how these factors are
considered when selecting the RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1,
2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting
the RPGs, states must also consider the
rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the 10-year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by
the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In
setting RPGs, each state with one or
more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must
also consult with potentially
‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby
states with emission sources that may be
affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I state’s areas. See, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 4 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such
‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
4 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. See, 70 FR 39104. In
making a BART determination for a
fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant
with a total generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state
must use the approach set forth in the
BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART eligible source would not
be expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area.
The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following factors: (1)
The costs of compliance, (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at
the source, (4) the remaining useful life
of the source, and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70933
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. CAA section
169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states
to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve
greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would
BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA
made just such a demonstration for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR
39104, July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations
provide that states participating in the
CAIR cap and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain
subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR
part 97, do not require affected BART
eligible electric generating units (EGUs)
to install, operate, and maintain BART
for emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR
51.308(e)(4)). Since CAIR is not
applicable to emissions of PM, states
were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs
subject to BART for that pollutant.
CAIR, as originally promulgated,
required 28 states and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2
and NOX that significantly contributed
to, or interfered with maintenance of the
1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/
or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in
any downwind state. See, 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005). CAIR established
emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for
states found to contribute significantly
to nonattainment in downwind states
and required these states to submit SIP
revisions that implemented these
budgets. States had the flexibility to
choose which control measures to adopt
to achieve the budgets, including
participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,
NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season
emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated
FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to
ensure the reductions were achieved in
a timely manner. On July 11, 2008, the
DC Circuit issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the
associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety.
See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70934
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
response to EPA’s petition for rehearing,
the Court issued an order remanding
CAIR to EPA without vacating either
CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. The Court
thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and
CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in order to
‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until EPA replaces it with a rule
consistent with the court’s opinion. See,
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at
1178. The Court directed EPA to
‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with
its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined
to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action.
In response to the Court’s decision,
EPA has issued a new rule to address
interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in
the eastern United States. See, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA explained
in that action that EPA is promulgating
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) as a replacement for (not a
successor to) CAIR’s SO2 and NOX
emissions reduction and trading
programs. In other words, the CAIR and
CAIR FIP requirements only remain in
force to address emissions through the
2011 control periods. As part of the
CSAPR, EPA finalized regulatory
changes to sunset the CAIR and CAIR
FIPs for control periods in 2012 and
beyond. See, 76 FR 48322. EPA also
stated in this final action that it has not
conducted a technical analysis to
determine whether compliance with the
CSAPR would satisfy the requirements
of the RHR addressing alternatives to
BART. For that reason, EPA did not
make a determination or establish a
presumption that compliance with the
CSAPR satisfies BART-related
requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in
the process of determining whether
compliance with the CSAPR will
provide for greater reasonable progress
toward improving visibility than sourcespecific BART controls for EGUs but no
such determination has yet been
proposed.
E. Long-Term Strategy
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a 10
to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
a long-term strategy in their regional
haze SIPs. The long-term strategy is the
compilation of all control measures a
state will use during the
implementation period of the specific
SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.
The long-term strategy must include
‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class
I areas within, or affected by emissions
from, the state. See, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing states
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. See,
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases,
the contributing state must demonstrate
that it has included, in its SIP, all
measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be
required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a
minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors
listed below are taken into account in
developing their long-term strategy: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the long-term strategy.
See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the long-term
strategy for RAVI to require that the
RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less
frequently than every three years until
the date of submission of the state’s first
plan addressing regional haze visibility
impairment, which was due December
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for review and revision of a coordinated
long-term strategy for addressing RAVI
and regional haze, and the state must
submit the first such coordinated longterm strategy with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated long-term
strategy’s, and periodic progress reports
evaluating progress towards RPGs, must
be submitted consistent with the
schedule for SIP submission and
periodic progress reports set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic review of a
state’s long-term strategy must report on
both regional haze and RAVI
impairment and must be submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE
network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the
core requirements of section 51.308(d)
with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for
BART applies only to the first regional
haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will continue to be
met.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See, 40 CFR
51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the
District of Columbia’s regional haze
submittal?
On October 27, 2011, the DDOE
submitted revisions to the District of
Columbia SIP to address regional haze
as required by EPA’s RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
The District of Columbia has no Class
I areas within its borders. There are,
however, five Class I areas within 300
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
kilometers of the District. These five
Class I areas are Shenandoah National
Park, Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter
Creek Wilderness, Brigantine
Wilderness, and James River Face
Wilderness. Shenandoah National Park
in Virginia is the closest Class I area to
the District of Columbia. The next
closest areas are the Brigantine
Wilderness Area in New Jersey, the
Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness
Areas in West Virginia, and James River
Face Wilderness Area in Virginia.
EPA’s RHR requires states to address
regional haze in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located within its state
and in each mandatory Class I Federal
area located outside the state, which
may be affected by emissions from its
facilities. The RHR requires states that
may reasonably cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in one or more
Class I areas to develop a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze
visibility impairment for each affected
Class I area. The MANE–VU states with
Class I areas established a contribution
threshold for determining whether a
state could be considered to affect an
area. The criteria for contribution was
established by the MANE–VU states to
be greater than 0.1 microgram per cubic
meter (mg/m3) or two percent of sulfate
pollution to a Class I area. MANE–VU
concluded that the District did not
contribute greater than 0.1 mg/m3 or two
percent sulfate contribution to any
nearby Class I areas, and so the District
of Columbia was not identified as
influencing the visibility impairment of
any Class I area. However, the District
of Columbia is responsible for
developing a regional haze SIP that
describes its long-term emission
strategy, its role in the consultation
processes, and how the SIP meets the
other requirements in EPA’s regional
haze regulations. As the District of
Columbia has no Class I areas within its
borders, the District is not required to
address the following Regional Haze SIP
elements: (a) The calculation of baseline
and natural visibility conditions, (b) the
establishment of reasonable progress
goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and
(d) RAVI requirements.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in Section II. E of this
action, the long-term strategy is a
compilation of all the control measures
relied on by the state to achieve the RPG
for the Class I areas affected by
emissions from the District. The District
of Columbia’s long-term strategy for the
first implementation period addresses
the emissions reductions from Federal,
state, and local controls that take effect
in the District from the baseline period
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70935
starting in 2002 until 2018. The District
of Columbia also participated in the
MANE–VU regional strategy
development process. As a participant,
the District of Columbia supported a
regional approach towards deciding
which control measures to pursue for
regional haze. The decision as to
appropriate control measures was based
on technical analyses documented in
the following reports by MANE–VU and
included as appendices to the District of
Columbia’s regional haze SIP revision:
(a) Contributions to Regional Haze in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United
States; (b) Assessment of Reasonable
Progress for Regional Haze in MANE–
VU Class I Areas; (c) Five-Factor
Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources:
Survey of Options for Conducting BART
Determinations; and (d) Assessment of
Control Technology Options for BARTEligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers,
Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants, and
Paper and Pulp Facilities.
The District of Columbia developed
its long-term strategy in coordination
with MANE–VU. As part of this process,
the District and MANE–VU identified
the emissions units within the District
of Columbia likely to have the largest
impacts currently on visibility at any of
the nearby Class I areas. The District
and MANE–VU, also estimated
emissions reductions from sources in
the District for 2018 as a result of all
controls required under Federal and
state regulations for the 2002–2018
period (including BART), and compared
projected visibility improvement with
the uniform rate of progress for the
nearby Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU
with assistance from the District of
Columbia. The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions, and assuming
emissions growth due to projected
increases in economic activity as well as
applying reductions expected from
Federal and state regulations affecting
the emissions of VOC and the visibilityimpairing pollutants NOX, PM10, PM2.5,
and SO2. The BART guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding
whether VOC and NH3 impair visibility
in their Class I area(s). MANE–VU
demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of sulfates are the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region.
MANE–VU determined that the total
ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70936
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
region are extremely small. In addition,
since VOC emissions are aggressively
controlled through the District of
Columbia SIP, the pollutants the District
of Columbia considered under BART
and RPG are NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
MANE–VU developed emissions
inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point
sources, (2) stationary area sources, (3)
off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road
mobile sources. The New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the
entire MANE–VU region. Stationary
point sources are those sources that emit
greater than a specified tonnage per
year, depending on the pollutant, with
data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small, but due to the large
number of these sources, the collective
emissions from the source category
could be significant. Off-road mobile
sources are equipment that can move
but do not use the roadways. On-road
mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles
that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are
estimated by vehicle type and road type.
Biogenic sources are natural sources like
trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay
of plants. Stationary point sources
emission data is tracked at the facility
level. For all other source types
emissions are summed on the county
level.
There are many Federal and state
control programs being implemented
that MANE–VU and the District of
Columbia anticipate will reduce
emissions between the baseline period
and 2018. To assess emissions
reductions from ongoing air pollution
control programs, BART, and reasonable
progress goals, MANE–VU developed
two 2018 emission control scenarios
called ‘‘on-the-books/on-the-way’’
(OTB/W) scenario and ‘‘beyond on the
way’’ (BOTW) scenario.
The OTB/W scenario included
emissions growth and control measures
that were either already ‘‘on the books’’
(promulgated as of June 15, 2005) or
were considered well ‘‘on the way’’ to
being implemented because they were
proposed, but not yet final. The
emissions inventory provided by the
District of Columbia for the OTB/W
2018 projections is based on adopted
and enforceable requirements. The
ongoing air pollution control programs
relied upon by the District of Columbia
for the OTB/W projections include the
NOX SIP Call; NOX and/or VOC
reductions from the control rules in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for the
District of Columbia; NOX OTC 2001
Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial,
and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; and
Industrial Boiler/Process Heater
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT). Non-EGU point
source control factors were not included
in the inventory for the District. Area
source control factors that applied for
the District of Columbia included the
2001 OTC model rules (consumer
products, architectural and industrial
maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable
fuel containers, and mobile equipment
repair and refinishing; and solvent
cleaning); and on-board vapor recovery.
In addition, Federally-enforceable
controls were incorporated in the EGU
and mobile source models. These
include CAIR; the Federal 2007 heavy
duty diesel engine standards for nonroad trucks and buses; the Federal Tier
2 tailpipe controls for the on-road
vehicles; Federal large spark ignition
and recreational vehicle controls; and
EPA’s non-road diesel rules.
The District of Columbia also relied
on emission reductions from various
Federal MACT rules in the development
of the 2018 emission inventory
projections. These MACT rules include
the combustion turbine and
reciprocating internal combustion
engines MACT, the industrial boiler and
process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7,
and 10 year MACT standards. On July
30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of
Appeals mandated the vacatur and
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT
Rule.5 This MACT was vacated since it
was directly affected by the vacatur and
remand of the Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator
(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed
a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to
address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75
FR 32006) and issued a final rule on
March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The
District of Columbia’s modeling
included emission reductions from the
vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule.
The District of Columbia did not redo its
modeling analysis when the rule was reissued. However, the expected
reductions in SO2 and PM are small
relative to the District of Columbia’s
inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the
expected reductions of the new rule
acceptable since the final rule requires
compliance by 2014, it provides the
District of Columbia time to assure the
required controls are in place prior to
the end of the first implementation
period in 2018. In addition, the RHR
requires that any resulting differences
between emissions projections and
5 NRDC
PO 00000
v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250.
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
actual emissions reductions that may
occur will be addressed during the fiveyear review prior to the next 2018
regional haze SIP.
The other emissions control scenario
MANE–VU considered was a ‘‘beyond
on the way’’ (BOTW) scenario that
included potential additional control
measures to attain the ozone and fine
particulate NAAQS and to meet regional
haze goals. Non-EGU point source
controls included NOX measures
(asphalt production plants; cement
kilns; glass and fiberglass furnaces; low
sulfur heating oil for commercial and
institutional units; and ICI boilers using
natural gas, #2 or #4 or #6 fuel oil, and
coal); one primary PM10 and PM2.5
measure (commercial heating oil); SO2
measures (commercial heating oil and
ICI boilers using #2 or #4 or #6 fuel oil
and coal); and a VOC measure
(adhesives and sealants application).
Area source control factors included
NOX measures (ICI boilers using natural
gas, #2 and #4 and #6 fuel oil, and coal;
and residential and commercial home
heating oil); primary PM10 and PM2.5
measures (residential and commercial
home heating oil); SO2 measures
(residential and commercial home
heating oil and ICI boilers using
distillate oil); and VOC measures
(adhesives and sealants; emulsified and
cutback asphalt paving; consumer
products; and portable fuel containers).
Additional potential and reasonable
measures were analyzed using a four
factor analysis. The list of measures was
further refined and incorporated into a
second BOTW, or ‘‘best and final’’
inventory, and included a ‘‘top 167 EGU
stacks strategy’’; a low sulfur fuel
strategy (including second phase, to 15
parts per million (ppm) limit); a BART
implementation strategy; and a
continued evaluation of additional
control measures. For the District of
Columbia, the difference between the
two BOTW inventories is negligible.
Since the District of Columbia does
not contribute more than 0.1 mg/m3 to
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
the District chose not to adopt some
measures in the BOTW or ‘‘best and
final’’ scenarios and selected as its longterm strategy the OTB/W scenario. EPA
is proposing to find that the control
measures in the OTB/W scenario are
reasonable for the District’s long-term
strategy because the District’s
contribution to regional haze is less than
the 0.1 mg/m3 and two percent sulfate
thresholds established by MANE–VU.
The District’s long-term strategy is not
the same as the long-term strategy
recommended by MANE–VU, but
emission reductions will provide
sufficient emissions reductions for the
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70937
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
District to obtain its share of the of the
emissions reductions needed to meet
the reasonable progress goal for the five
Class I areas within 300 kilometers of
the District of Columbia. Tables 1 and
2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline
and 2018 estimated emissions
inventories for the District of Columbia
based on the OTB/W scenario. The 2018
estimated emissions include emission
growth as well as emission reductions
due to ongoing emission control
strategies, BART, and reasonable
progress goals.
TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN TONS PER YEAR
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................
69
6,432
4,895
2,073
1,726
780
1,644
8,902
3,571
30
132
805
153
299
....................
161
3,269
222
310
....................
4
14
398
2
....................
963
1,337
271
375
....................
Total ..........................................................................
14,033
15,689
1,389
3,962
422
2,946
TABLE 2—2018 EMISSION SUMMARY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ‘‘OTB/W’’ IN TONS PER YEAR
VOC
NOX
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
Point .................................................................................
Area ..................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................
90
5,255
1,797
1,369
1,726
630
2,259
1,717
1,815
30
263
917
58
124
....................
302
3,825
65
135
....................
17
17
438
3
....................
863
1,632
41
5
....................
Total ..........................................................................
10,237
6,551
1,362
4,326
474
2,541
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term
Strategy and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of
Progress
MANE–VU performed modeling for
the regional haze long-term strategy for
the 11 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states
and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex
technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system.
MANE–VU used the following modeling
system:
• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State
University/National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5)
version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model
routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and
regional haze regulatory modeling
studies.
• Emissions Model: The Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system
is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated
emission inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic
emission sources for photochemical grid
models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s
Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a
photochemical grid model capable of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
addressing ozone, PM, visibility and
acid deposition at a regional scale.
• Air Quality Model: The Regional
Model for Aerosols and Deposition
(REMSAD), version 8, is an Eulerian
grid model that was primarily used to
determine the attribution of sulfate
species in the Eastern U.S. via the
species-tagging scheme.
• Air Quality Model: The California
Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a
non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model
used to access the contribution of
individual states’ emissions to sulfate
levels at selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in
the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018
was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12
kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11
MANE–VU states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of
Columbia and states adjacent to them.
This grid is nested within a larger
national CMAQ modeling grid of 36 x
36 km grid cells that covers the
continental United States, portions of
Canada and Mexico, and portions of the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the
east and west coasts. Selection of a
representative period of meteorology is
crucial for evaluating baseline air
quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
selection of the entire year of 2002
(January 1–December 31) as the best
period of meteorology available for
conducting the CMAQ modeling. The
MANE–VU states modeling was
developed consistent with EPA’s
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
located at https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002),
April 2007, and EPA document,
Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, EPA–454/R–05–001,
August 2005, updated November 2005
(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’).
MANE–VU examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the longterm strategy and for use in the
modeling assessment. The modeling
assessment predicts future levels of
emissions and visibility impairment
used to support the LTS and to compare
predicted, modeled visibility levels with
those on the uniform rate of progress. In
keeping with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70938
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress
and examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
MANE–VU used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), the District of Columbia
provided the appropriate supporting
documentation for all required analyses
used to determine the District’s longterm strategy. The technical analyses
and modeling used to develop the
glidepath and to support the long-term
strategy are consistent with EPA’s RHR,
and interim and final EPA Modeling
Guidance. EPA accepts the MANE–VU
technical modeling to support the longterm strategy and determine visibility
improvement for the uniform rate of
progress because the modeling system
was chosen and used according to EPA
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with
the MANE–VU model performance
procedures and results, and that the
CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the
regional haze assessments for the
District of Columbia long-term strategy
and regional haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants
to Visibility Impairment
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, MANE–VU
developed emission sensitivity model
runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility
and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20
percent worst visibility days. Regarding
which pollutants are most significantly
impacting visibility in the MANE–VU
region, MANE–VU’s contribution
assessment, demonstrated that sulfate is
the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region.
Sulfate particles commonly account for
more than 50 percent of particle-related
light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as
much as or more than 80 percent on the
haziest days. In particular, for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge
Class I area, on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2000–2004, sulfate
accounted for 66 percent of the particle
extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon
(OC) consistently accounts for the next
largest fraction of light extinction.
Organic carbon accounted for 13 percent
of light extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days for Brigantine,
followed by nitrate that accounts for 9
percent of light extinction.
The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by MANE–VU predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
MANE–VU region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant. As a
result of the dominant role of sulfate in
the formation of regional haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region,
MANE–VU concluded that an effective
emissions management approach would
rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United
States. As stated above, the District of
Columbia relied on technical analyses
developed by MANE–VU to
demonstrate the District’s emissions
impact on neighboring Class I areas. The
‘‘Contributions to Regional Haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United
States’’ document used several
analytical techniques, such as REMSAD,
emissions divided by distance (Q/D),
and CALPUFF, to analyze visibility at
MANE–VU and neighboring Class I
areas. These findings resulted in the
identification of the most significant
contributors to visibility impairment in
MANE–VU and other neighboring Class
I areas. Table 3 shows the overall
percent contribution of sulfate from the
District of Columbia to the three closest
Class I areas. The District of Columbia
does not contribute more than two
percent of sulfate to any nearby Class I
area, which is the threshold established
by MANE–VU states with Class I areas
for contributing to meet the RPG for
2018. The highest impacts, at the
Brigantine Wilderness Area and
Shenandoah National Park, are well
below this threshold. For this reason, no
MANE–VU states asked the District of
Columbia for emissions reductions to
the RPGs in these Class I areas. The
Shenandoah National Park is in Virginia
and the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area is
in West Virginia. Both, Virginia and
West Virginia are members of the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)
RPO. VISTAS conducted its own
contribution assessment and similarly
concluded that no additional emission
reductions from the District of Columbia
were necessary in this first planning
period.
TABLE 3—PERCENT ANNUAL AVERAGE SULFATE CONTRIBUTION FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SOURCES IN 2002
REMSAD
%
Class I area
Shenandoah National Park ..............................................................
Dolly Sods Wilderness .....................................................................
Brigantine Wilderness ......................................................................
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
Since the District of Columbia does
not have a Class I area, it is not required
to establish RPGs. Although the District
of Columbia was not identified as
influencing the visibility impairment of
any Class I area, as a member of MANE–
VU, the District of Columbia worked in
cooperation with the MANE–VU Class I
states as those states established
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
0.04
0.01
0.04
reasonable progress goals for their Class
I areas.
5. BART
BART is an element of the District of
Columbia’s long-term strategy. The
BART regional haze requirements
consist of three components: (a)
Identification of all the BART eligible
sources; (b) an assessment of whether
the BART eligible sources are subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CALPUFF
(NWS)
%
Q/D
%
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.02
0.07
CALPUFF
(MM5)
%
0.07
NA
0.07
BART; and (c) the determination of the
BART controls.
The first component of a BART
evaluation is to identify all the BART
eligible sources. The BART eligible
sources were identified by utilizing the
criteria in the BART Guidelines as
follows:
• Determine whether one or more
emissions units at the facility fit within
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
one of the 26 categories listed in the
BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158–39159);
• Determine whether the emission
unit(s) was in existence on August 7,
1977 and begun operation after August
6, 1962;
• Determine whether potential
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 from
subject units are 250 tons or more per
year.
The BART guidelines recommend
addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as
visibility-impairment pollutants and
leave it up to the discretion of states to
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions.
MANE–VU demonstrated that
anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are
the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region.
MANE–VU determined that the total
ammonia emissions in the MANE–VU
region are extremely small. In addition,
since VOC emissions are aggressively
controlled through the District of
Columbia SIP, the pollutants the District
of Columbia considered under BART are
NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
Based on a review of emissions
inventory data, air quality permits, and
other data on the air pollution sources,
the District of Columbia identified two
BART eligible sources located at one
facility, the Benning Road Generating
Station (BRGS). Potomac Power
Resources, LLC (PPR) owns the BRGS.
PPR is a wholly owned but unregulated
subsidiary of Pepco Energy Services,
Inc. (PES), which manages the assets of
BRGS on behalf of PPR. The BRGS
typically operates only during high
demand periods, mostly during hot
spells in the summer or perhaps during
very cold conditions of the winter
months. The two BART-eligible units at
BRGS are two oil-fired steam electric
generating units (EGUs), Units 15 and
16. Units 15 and 16 were installed in
1968 and 1972, respectively, and both
have a potential to emit of more than
250 tons per year of a visibility
impairing pollutant.
The second component of the BART
evaluation is to determine whether a
BART eligible source may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area.
Those sources that do are subject to
BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). As
discussed in the BART guidelines, a
state may choose to consider all BART
eligible sources to be subject to BART
(70 FR 39161). In June 2004, the MANE–
VU Board decided that because of the
collective importance of BART sources,
BART determinations should be made
by the MANE–VU states for each BART
eligible source. Consistent with that
decision, the District of Columbia
identified the two BART eligible sources
at the BRGS as subject to BART.
The final component of a BART
evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject
sources. Initially, the District of
Columbia planned to use its
participation in CAIR to meet the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX for Units
15 and 16 at BRGS. For PM, PES agreed
to a permit condition to address
emissions. PES agreed that it would
either shut down the two EGUs by
December 17, 2012 or accept a de
minimis cap on actual emissions of
70939
PM10 of 15 tons per year from both Units
15 and 16.
More recently, however, PES
committed to accept a permit condition
that would require the two BART units
at the BRGS to cease operation by
December 17, 2012, with no alternative
conditions in lieu of shutting down. In
response to the PES commitment, the
District of Columbia established
federally enforceable terms and
conditions in a Title V permit for Units
15 and 16 at the BRGS, and as part of
its Regional Haze SIP revision included
condition III.a.2.D. Compliance with
Requirements for Protection of Visibility
of the Title V Operation Permit/Chapter
3 Permit, No.026–R1, for BRGS.
Condition III.a.2.D is the only condition
of the permit that the District of
Columbia requested to be considered as
part of the SIP revision to address the
CAA’s requirements for Regional Haze.
The shutdown of Units 15 and 16 will
result in more emissions reductions
than would have resulted from CAIR
and in more emissions reductions than
the reductions modeled by MANE–VU
in the OTB/W control scenario. Table 4
demonstrates that the closure of the
units will result in 83 tons of SO2
reductions and 103 tons of NOX
reductions, in addition to those
anticipated under the OTB/W scenario
in the inventory of emissions for the
District of Columbia. There will also be
additional PM reductions. These
reductions beyond those anticipated
earlier will further help states with
Class I areas meet the reasonable
progress goals for 2018.
TABLE 4—ESTIMATED EGU EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
[Tons/Year]
Pollutant
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
NOX ..................................................................
SO2 ...................................................................
C. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU
State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation
Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context
of regional haze planning, and was
intended to create greater certainty and
understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU
states held ten consultation meetings
and/or conference calls from March 1,
2007 through March 21, 2008. In
addition to MANE–VU members
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
EGU reductions
needed without
CAIR
2018
OTB/W
2002
300
345
Total EGU
reductions due to
closure
of BRGS
197
262
300
345
103
83
attending these meetings and conference
calls, participants from VISTAS,
Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal
Land Managers were also in attendance.
In addition to the conference calls and
meeting, the FLMs were given the
opportunity to review and comment on
each of the technical documents
developed by MANE–VU.
On September 8, 2011, the District of
Columbia submitted a draft Regional
Haze SIP to the relevant FLMs for
review and comment pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLMs provided
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018 surplus
reductions
103
83
comments on the draft Regional Haze
SIP in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3). The comments received
from the FLMs were addressed and
incorporated in the District of
Columbia’s SIP revision. On October 11,
2011, District of Columbia made its
Regional Haze SIP available for public
comment. No comments were received.
To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), the District of Columbia
commits in their SIP to ongoing
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
70940
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
consultation with the FLMs on Regional
Haze issues throughout the
implementation period of the SIP.
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
Consistent with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g), the District of
Columbia has committed to submitting
a report on reasonable progress (in the
form of a SIP revision) to the EPA every
five years following the initial submittal
of its regional haze SIP.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve the
revision to the District of Columbia SIP
submitted by the District of Columbia
through the DDOE on October 27, 2011
that addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. EPA is
proposing to make a determination that
the District of Columbia Regional Haze
SIP contains the emission reductions
needed to achieve the District of
Columbia’s share of emission reductions
agreed upon through the regional
planning process. Furthermore, the
District of Columbia’s Regional Haze
Plan ensures that emissions from the
District of Columbia will not interfere
with the reasonable progress goals for
neighboring states’ Class I areas.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find
that this revision meets the applicable
visibility related requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2) including but not
limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 p.m.2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
conclude that the Regional Haze Plan
submitted by the District of Columbia
also satisfies the BART requirements of
section 169A of the CAA. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:39 Nov 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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
approving the District of Columbia’s
Regional Haze Plan 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, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 8, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–29595 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0637; FRL -9492–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Oklahoma; Infrastructure
Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
submittals from the State of Oklahoma
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) that address the infrastructure
elements specified in the CAA section
110(a)(2), necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour
ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or standards). We are proposing to find
that the current Oklahoma State
Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the
following infrastructure elements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also
proposing to find that emissions from
sources in Oklahoma do not interfere
with measures required in the SIP of
any other state under part C of the Act
to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality, with regard to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. This action is being taken
under section 110 and part C of the Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 16, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2008–0637, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’
Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6comment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD
(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at
donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also
send a copy by email to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax
number (214) 665–7263.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70929-70940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29595]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0913; FRL-9492-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the District of
Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the District of
Columbia through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) on
October 27, 2011 that addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any
future, and remedy any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Regional Haze plan submitted by the District of Columbia
satisfies these requirements of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to
approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure requirements
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0913 by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0913, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0913. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you
[[Page 70930]]
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the District Department of the
Environment, 1200 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814-2037, or
by email at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 27, 2011, the DDOE submitted a
revision to its SIP to address Regional Haze for the first
implementation period. Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Background Information
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) Long-Term Strategy
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of District of Columbia's regional haze
submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling To Support the Long-Term Strategy and Determine
Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
5. BART
C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions (64 FR
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background Information
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
[[Page 70931]]
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in Section II of this notice. The
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Section 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO. MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member
states and tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode
Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont.
D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that through this process states
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their
reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This interpretation
is consistent with the requirement in the RHR that a state
participating in a regional planning process must include ``all
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that process.'' See, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the
MANE-VU process.
The District of Columbia submitted a Regional Haze SIP on October
27, 2011, to address the requirements of the RHR. On December 6, 2007
and January 11, 2008, the District of Columbia submitted its 1997 Ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On August 25, 2008 and September 22, 2008,
the District of Columbia submitted its 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. On September 21, 2009, the District of Columbia
submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA will act on these
[[Page 70932]]
submittals in a separate rulemaking action.
In the October 27, 2011 submittal, the District of Columbia
indicated that its Regional Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the
CAA, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has
reviewed the District of Columbia's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained
in section IV of this action, proposes to find that the District of
Columbia's Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the
requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\3\ The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents entitled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting
[[Page 70933]]
Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William
L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting
the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to
reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-
year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural
conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress which states
are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they
expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I
areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with potentially
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I
state's areas. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \4\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. See, 70 FR 39104. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a
total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must
use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005).
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)).
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject
to BART for that pollutant.
CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with
maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or the 1997
NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any downwind state. See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005). CAIR established emissions budgets for SO2 and
NOX for states found to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in downwind states and required these states to submit
SIP revisions that implemented these budgets. States had the
flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the
budgets, including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and
NOX-ozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs
for all states covered by CAIR to ensure the reductions were achieved
in a timely manner. On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its
decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in
their entirety. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir.
2008). However, in
[[Page 70934]]
response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
court's opinion. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The
Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July
11, 2008, opinion but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action.
In response to the Court's decision, EPA has issued a new rule to
address interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in
the eastern United States. See, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA
explained in that action that EPA is promulgating the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a replacement for (not a successor to) CAIR's
SO2 and NOX emissions reduction and trading
programs. In other words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements only
remain in force to address emissions through the 2011 control periods.
As part of the CSAPR, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset the
CAIR and CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See, 76 FR
48322. EPA also stated in this final action that it has not conducted a
technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the CSAPR would
satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing alternatives to BART.
For that reason, EPA did not make a determination or establish a
presumption that compliance with the CSAPR satisfies BART-related
requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in the process of determining whether
compliance with the CSAPR will provide for greater reasonable progress
toward improving visibility than source-specific BART controls for EGUs
but no such determination has yet been proposed.
E. Long-Term Strategy
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a long-term strategy in their regional haze SIPs.
The long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a
state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP
submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The long-term strategy must include
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.
See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their long-term strategy, including
stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken
into account in developing their long-term strategy: (1) Emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and
forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within
the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. See, 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the
long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide
for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for addressing RAVI and
regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated
long-term strategy with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
long-term strategy's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress
towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP
submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f)
and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's long-term
strategy must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must
be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
[[Page 70935]]
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See, 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
III. What is EPA's analysis of the District of Columbia's regional haze
submittal?
On October 27, 2011, the DDOE submitted revisions to the District
of Columbia SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.
A. Affected Class I Areas
The District of Columbia has no Class I areas within its borders.
There are, however, five Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the
District. These five Class I areas are Shenandoah National Park, Dolly
Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, Brigantine Wilderness, and
James River Face Wilderness. Shenandoah National Park in Virginia is
the closest Class I area to the District of Columbia. The next closest
areas are the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey, the Dolly Sods
and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas in West Virginia, and James River Face
Wilderness Area in Virginia.
EPA's RHR requires states to address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within its state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state, which may be
affected by emissions from its facilities. The RHR requires states that
may reasonably cause or contribute to visibility impairment in one or
more Class I areas to develop a long-term strategy that addresses
regional haze visibility impairment for each affected Class I area. The
MANE-VU states with Class I areas established a contribution threshold
for determining whether a state could be considered to affect an area.
The criteria for contribution was established by the MANE-VU states to
be greater than 0.1 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) or two
percent of sulfate pollution to a Class I area. MANE-VU concluded that
the District did not contribute greater than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or two
percent sulfate contribution to any nearby Class I areas, and so the
District of Columbia was not identified as influencing the visibility
impairment of any Class I area. However, the District of Columbia is
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that describes its long-
term emission strategy, its role in the consultation processes, and how
the SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze
regulations. As the District of Columbia has no Class I areas within
its borders, the District is not required to address the following
Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) The calculation of baseline and natural
visibility conditions, (b) the establishment of reasonable progress
goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in Section II. E of this action, the long-term
strategy is a compilation of all the control measures relied on by the
state to achieve the RPG for the Class I areas affected by emissions
from the District. The District of Columbia's long-term strategy for
the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from
Federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the District
from the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. The District of
Columbia also participated in the MANE-VU regional strategy development
process. As a participant, the District of Columbia supported a
regional approach towards deciding which control measures to pursue for
regional haze. The decision as to appropriate control measures was
based on technical analyses documented in the following reports by
MANE-VU and included as appendices to the District of Columbia's
regional haze SIP revision: (a) Contributions to Regional Haze in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States; (b) Assessment of Reasonable
Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas; (c) Five-Factor
Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting
BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options
for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers,
Cement Plants, and Paper and Pulp Facilities.
The District of Columbia developed its long-term strategy in
coordination with MANE-VU. As part of this process, the District and
MANE-VU identified the emissions units within the District of Columbia
likely to have the largest impacts currently on visibility at any of
the nearby Class I areas. The District and MANE-VU, also estimated
emissions reductions from sources in the District for 2018 as a result
of all controls required under Federal and state regulations for the
2002-2018 period (including BART), and compared projected visibility
improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the nearby Class I
areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from the
District of Columbia. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by
projecting 2002 emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to
projected increases in economic activity as well as applying reductions
expected from Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of
VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART
guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC
and NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). MANE-VU
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class
I areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. MANE-VU determined
that the total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU
[[Page 70936]]
region are extremely small. In addition, since VOC emissions are
aggressively controlled through the District of Columbia SIP, the
pollutants the District of Columbia considered under BART and RPG are
NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) stationary area
sources, (3) off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region.
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source
category could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops,
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types
emissions are summed on the county level.
There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and the District of Columbia anticipate will reduce
emissions between the baseline period and 2018. To assess emissions
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and
reasonable progress goals, MANE-VU developed two 2018 emission control
scenarios called ``on-the-books/on-the-way'' (OTB/W) scenario and
``beyond on the way'' (BOTW) scenario.
The OTB/W scenario included emissions growth and control measures
that were either already ``on the books'' (promulgated as of June 15,
2005) or were considered well ``on the way'' to being implemented
because they were proposed, but not yet final. The emissions inventory
provided by the District of Columbia for the OTB/W 2018 projections is
based on adopted and enforceable requirements. The ongoing air
pollution control programs relied upon by the District of Columbia for
the OTB/W projections include the NOX SIP Call;
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in the 1-
hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for the District of Columbia; NOX
OTC 2001 Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI)
Boilers; and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT). Non-EGU point source control factors were
not included in the inventory for the District. Area source control
factors that applied for the District of Columbia included the 2001 OTC
model rules (consumer products, architectural and industrial
maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers, and mobile
equipment repair and refinishing; and solvent cleaning); and on-board
vapor recovery. In addition, Federally-enforceable controls were
incorporated in the EGU and mobile source models. These include CAIR;
the Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for non-road trucks
and buses; the Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for the on-road
vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle
controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules.
The District of Columbia also relied on emission reductions from
various Federal MACT rules in the development of the 2018 emission
inventory projections. These MACT rules include the combustion turbine
and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACT, the industrial
boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7, and 10 year MACT
standards. On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals
mandated the vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\5\
This MACT was vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and
remand of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI)
Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to
address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final
rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The District of Columbia's
modeling included emission reductions from the vacated Industrial
Boiler MACT rule. The District of Columbia did not redo its modeling
analysis when the rule was re-issued. However, the expected reductions
in SO2 and PM are small relative to the District of
Columbia's inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by
2014, it provides the District of Columbia time to assure the required
controls are in place prior to the end of the first implementation
period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any resulting
differences between emissions projections and actual emissions
reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-year review
prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other emissions control scenario MANE-VU considered was a
``beyond on the way'' (BOTW) scenario that included potential
additional control measures to attain the ozone and fine particulate
NAAQS and to meet regional haze goals. Non-EGU point source controls
included NOX measures (asphalt production plants; cement
kilns; glass and fiberglass furnaces; low sulfur heating oil for
commercial and institutional units; and ICI boilers using natural gas,
2 or 4 or 6 fuel oil, and coal); one primary
PM10 and PM2.5 measure (commercial heating oil);
SO2 measures (commercial heating oil and ICI boilers using
2 or 4 or 6 fuel oil and coal); and a VOC
measure (adhesives and sealants application). Area source control
factors included NOX measures (ICI boilers using natural
gas, 2 and 4 and 6 fuel oil, and coal; and
residential and commercial home heating oil); primary PM10
and PM2.5 measures (residential and commercial home heating
oil); SO2 measures (residential and commercial home heating
oil and ICI boilers using distillate oil); and VOC measures (adhesives
and sealants; emulsified and cutback asphalt paving; consumer products;
and portable fuel containers). Additional potential and reasonable
measures were analyzed using a four factor analysis. The list of
measures was further refined and incorporated into a second BOTW, or
``best and final'' inventory, and included a ``top 167 EGU stacks
strategy''; a low sulfur fuel strategy (including second phase, to 15
parts per million (ppm) limit); a BART implementation strategy; and a
continued evaluation of additional control measures. For the District
of Columbia, the difference between the two BOTW inventories is
negligible.
Since the District of Columbia does not contribute more than 0.1
[mu]g/m\3\ to visibility impairment at any Class I area, the District
chose not to adopt some measures in the BOTW or ``best and final''
scenarios and selected as its long-term strategy the OTB/W scenario.
EPA is proposing to find that the control measures in the OTB/W
scenario are reasonable for the District's long-term strategy because
the District's contribution to regional haze is less than the 0.1
[mu]g/m\3\ and two percent sulfate thresholds established by MANE-VU.
The District's long-term strategy is not the same as the long-term
strategy recommended by MANE-VU, but emission reductions will provide
sufficient emissions reductions for the
[[Page 70937]]
District to obtain its share of the of the emissions reductions needed
to meet the reasonable progress goal for the five Class I areas within
300 kilometers of the District of Columbia. Tables 1 and 2 are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emissions inventories
for the District of Columbia based on the OTB/W scenario. The 2018
estimated emissions include emission growth as well as emission
reductions due to ongoing emission control strategies, BART, and
reasonable progress goals.
Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for the District of Columbia in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 69 780 132 161 4 963
Area.............................. 6,432 1,644 805 3,269 14 1,337
On-Road Mobile.................... 4,895 8,902 153 222 398 271
Off-Road Mobile................... 2,073 3,571 299 310 2 375
Biogenic.......................... 1,726 30 ........... ........... ........... ...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 14,033 15,689 1,389 3,962 422 2,946
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for the District of Columbia ``OTB/W'' in Tons per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 90 630 263 302 17 863
Area.............................. 5,255 2,259 917 3,825 17 1,632
On-Road Mobile.................... 1,797 1,717 58 65 438 41
Off-Road Mobile................... 1,369 1,815 124 135 3 5
Biogenic.......................... 1,726 30 ........... ........... ........... ...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 10,237 6,551 1,362 4,326 474 2,541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term Strategy and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze long-term strategy
for the 11 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of
Columbia. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that
began with selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following
modeling system:
Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is an Eulerian grid model that was
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36 x 36 km grid cells that covers the continental United
States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a
representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline
air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due
to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU
conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the
entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of
meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located
at https://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document,
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated
November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the long-term
strategy and for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling
assessment predicts future levels of emissions and vi
