[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70929-70940]
[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. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through http://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
http://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 http://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,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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 http://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 http://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

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

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

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

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

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 http://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 http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, 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 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

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 long-term 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 long-term 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class I area                    REMSAD %            Q/D %        CALPUFF (NWS) %   CALPUFF (MM5) %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shenandoah National Park................              0.04              0.05              0.07              0.07
Dolly Sods Wilderness...................              0.01              0.02              0.02                NA
Brigantine Wilderness...................              0.04              0.05              0.07              0.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
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 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

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 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total EGU
                                                                                EGU reductions    reductions due     2018 surplus
                           Pollutant                                  2002           2018  OTB/W     needed without     to closure of      reductions
                                                                                CAIR              BRGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................................               300               103               197               300               103
SO2...........................................................               345                83               262               345                83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO 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 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 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

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.

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:
     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