Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70929 

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 http:// 

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? 

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 

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: 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 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas 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.’’ 

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, (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). 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, 

July 1, 1999). 

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. 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70933 

4The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70934 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 (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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
70936 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250. 

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 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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

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-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 

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 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 70939 

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] 

Pollutant 2002 2018 

OTB/W 

EGU reductions 

needed without 

CAIR 

Total EGU 

reductions due to 

closure 

of BRGS 

2018 surplus 

reductions 

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 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 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://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. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1