```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70929-70940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29595]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0913; FRL-9492-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
District of Columbia; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the District of 
Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the District of 
Columbia through the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) on 
October 27, 2011 that addresses regional haze for the first 
implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any 
future, and remedy any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility 
in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to 
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure 
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural 
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing to determine 
that the Regional Haze plan submitted by the District of Columbia 
satisfies these requirements of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to 
approve this revision as meeting the infrastructure requirements 
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0913 by one of the following methods:
    A. 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 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

[[Page 70930]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background Information

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122, 
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and

[[Page 70931]]

established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized in Section II of this notice. The 
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Section 51.308(b) 
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the 
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the 
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO. MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of 
state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies 
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the 
management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues 
in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor of the United States. Member 
states and tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the 
District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode 
Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and Vermont.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that 
within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that 
its SIP, among other requirements, ``contains adequate provisions 
prohibiting any source or other types of emission activity within the 
State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will interfere 
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation 
plan for any other State to protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 
110(a)(2)(J) requires that such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements 
of part C of (Subchapter I) (relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility 
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as 
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance, 
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could 
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's 
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of 
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative 
environment among the states, and that through this process states 
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an 
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of 
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve 
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their 
reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This interpretation 
is consistent with the requirement in the RHR that a state 
participating in a regional planning process must include ``all 
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations agreed upon through that process.'' See, 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for 
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to 
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address 
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable 
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. States working together 
through a regional planning process, are required to address an agreed 
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class 
I areas of their neighbors. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 
requirements, appropriate regional haze SIPs will contain measures that 
will achieve these emissions reductions and will meet the applicable 
visibility related requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all 
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical 
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, 
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to 
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU states 
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the 
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling 
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the 
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were 
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU, 
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part 
of the state's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The 
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been 
prepared by the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the 
emissions reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the 
MANE-VU process.
    The District of Columbia submitted a Regional Haze SIP on October 
27, 2011, to address the requirements of the RHR. On December 6, 2007 
and January 11, 2008, the District of Columbia submitted its 1997 Ozone 
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On August 25, 2008 and September 22, 2008, 
the District of Columbia submitted its 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP. On September 21, 2009, the District of Columbia 
submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 
EPA will act on these

[[Page 70932]]

submittals in a separate rulemaking action.
    In the October 27, 2011 submittal, the District of Columbia 
indicated that its Regional Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the 
CAA, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 
reviewed the District of Columbia's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained 
in section IV of this action, proposes to find that the District of 
Columbia's Regional Haze submittal meets the portions of the 
requirements of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 
protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\3\ The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in 
documents entitled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at 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

[[Page 70933]]

Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William 
L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA 
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting 
the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to 
reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 
``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission 
reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-
year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural 
conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress which states 
are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they 
expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I 
areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with potentially 
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission 
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I 
state's areas. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \4\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. See, 70 FR 39104. In making a BART 
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a 
total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must 
use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is 
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making 
BART determinations for other types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005). 
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and 
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP 
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric 
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for 
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)). 
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still 
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject 
to BART for that pollutant.
    CAIR, as originally promulgated, required 28 states and the 
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contributed to, or interfered with 
maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or the 1997 
NAAQS for 8-hour ozone in any downwind state. See, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 
2005). CAIR established emissions budgets for SO2 and 
NOX for states found to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in downwind states and required these states to submit 
SIP revisions that implemented these budgets. States had the 
flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the 
budgets, including participation in EPA-administered cap-and-trade 
programs addressing SO2, NOX-annual, and 
NOX-ozone season emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs 
for all states covered by CAIR to ensure the reductions were achieved 
in a timely manner. On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit issued its 
decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in 
their entirety. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 
2008). However, in

[[Page 70934]]

response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order 
remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 
The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. See, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. The 
Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 
11, 2008, opinion but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for 
completing that action.
    In response to the Court's decision, EPA has issued a new rule to 
address interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in 
the eastern United States. See, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). EPA 
explained in that action that EPA is promulgating the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a replacement for (not a successor to) CAIR's 
SO2 and NOX emissions reduction and trading 
programs. In other words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements only 
remain in force to address emissions through the 2011 control periods. 
As part of the CSAPR, EPA finalized regulatory changes to sunset the 
CAIR and CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See, 76 FR 
48322. EPA also stated in this final action that it has not conducted a 
technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the CSAPR would 
satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing alternatives to BART. 
For that reason, EPA did not make a determination or establish a 
presumption that compliance with the CSAPR satisfies BART-related 
requirements for EGUs. EPA is now in the process of determining whether 
compliance with the CSAPR will provide for greater reasonable progress 
toward improving visibility than source-specific BART controls for EGUs 
but no such determination has yet been proposed.

E. Long-Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a long-term strategy in their regional haze SIPs. 
The long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a 
state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP 
submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The long-term strategy must include 
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for 
all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state. 
See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their long-term strategy, including 
stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must 
describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken 
into account in developing their long-term strategy: (1) Emission 
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including 
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of 
construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for 
compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement 
schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and 
forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within 
the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. See, 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment Long-Term Strategy

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the 
long-term strategy for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide 
for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every 
three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before 
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for addressing RAVI and 
regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated 
long-term strategy with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated 
long-term strategy's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress 
towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP 
submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) 
and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's long-term 
strategy must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must 
be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for

[[Page 70935]]

which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See, 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the District of Columbia's regional haze 
submittal?

    On October 27, 2011, the DDOE submitted revisions to the District 
of Columbia SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    The District of Columbia has no Class I areas within its borders. 
There are, however, five Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the 
District. These five Class I areas are Shenandoah National Park, Dolly 
Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, Brigantine Wilderness, and 
James River Face Wilderness. Shenandoah National Park in Virginia is 
the closest Class I area to the District of Columbia. The next closest 
areas are the Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey, the Dolly Sods 
and Otter Creek Wilderness Areas in West Virginia, and James River Face 
Wilderness Area in Virginia.
    EPA's RHR requires states to address regional haze in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located within its state and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state, which may be 
affected by emissions from its facilities. The RHR requires states that 
may reasonably cause or contribute to visibility impairment in one or 
more Class I areas to develop a long-term strategy that addresses 
regional haze visibility impairment for each affected Class I area. The 
MANE-VU states with Class I areas established a contribution threshold 
for determining whether a state could be considered to affect an area. 
The criteria for contribution was established by the MANE-VU states to 
be greater than 0.1 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) or two 
percent of sulfate pollution to a Class I area. MANE-VU concluded that 
the District did not contribute greater than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or two 
percent sulfate contribution to any nearby Class I areas, and so the 
District of Columbia was not identified as influencing the visibility 
impairment of any Class I area. However, the District of Columbia is 
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that describes its long-
term emission strategy, its role in the consultation processes, and how 
the SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze 
regulations. As the District of Columbia has no Class I areas within 
its borders, the District is not required to address the following 
Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) The calculation of baseline and natural 
visibility conditions, (b) the establishment of reasonable progress 
goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in Section II. E of this action, the long-term 
strategy is a compilation of all the control measures relied on by the 
state to achieve the RPG for the Class I areas affected by emissions 
from the District. The District of Columbia's long-term strategy for 
the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from 
Federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the District 
from the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. The District of 
Columbia also participated in the MANE-VU regional strategy development 
process. As a participant, the District of Columbia supported a 
regional approach towards deciding which control measures to pursue for 
regional haze. The decision as to appropriate control measures was 
based on technical analyses documented in the following reports by 
MANE-VU and included as appendices to the District of Columbia's 
regional haze SIP revision: (a) Contributions to Regional Haze in the 
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States; (b) Assessment of Reasonable 
Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas; (c) Five-Factor 
Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting 
BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of Control Technology Options 
for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, 
Cement Plants, and Paper and Pulp Facilities.
    The District of Columbia developed its long-term strategy in 
coordination with MANE-VU. As part of this process, the District and 
MANE-VU identified the emissions units within the District of Columbia 
likely to have the largest impacts currently on visibility at any of 
the nearby Class I areas. The District and MANE-VU, also estimated 
emissions reductions from sources in the District for 2018 as a result 
of all controls required under Federal and state regulations for the 
2002-2018 period (including BART), and compared projected visibility 
improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the nearby Class I 
areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from the 
District of Columbia. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by 
projecting 2002 emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to 
projected increases in economic activity as well as applying reductions 
expected from Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of 
VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 
guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC 
and NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). MANE-VU 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates are the major 
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class 
I areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. MANE-VU determined 
that the total ammonia emissions in the MANE-VU

[[Page 70936]]

region are extremely small. In addition, since VOC emissions are 
aggressively controlled through the District of Columbia SIP, the 
pollutants the District of Columbia considered under BART and RPG are 
NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source 
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) stationary area 
sources, (3) off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources. 
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an 
inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. 
Stationary point sources are those sources that emit greater than a 
specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data 
provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those 
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the 
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 
category could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment 
that can move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source 
emissions are automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway 
system. The emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type 
and road type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, 
grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission 
data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source types 
emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented 
that MANE-VU and the District of Columbia anticipate will reduce 
emissions between the baseline period and 2018. To assess emissions 
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and 
reasonable progress goals, MANE-VU developed two 2018 emission control 
scenarios called ``on-the-books/on-the-way'' (OTB/W) scenario and 
``beyond on the way'' (BOTW) scenario.
    The OTB/W scenario included emissions growth and control measures 
that were either already ``on the books'' (promulgated as of June 15, 
2005) or were considered well ``on the way'' to being implemented 
because they were proposed, but not yet final. The emissions inventory 
provided by the District of Columbia for the OTB/W 2018 projections is 
based on adopted and enforceable requirements. The ongoing air 
pollution control programs relied upon by the District of Columbia for 
the OTB/W projections include the NOX SIP Call; 
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in the 1-
hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for the District of Columbia; NOX 
OTC 2001 Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) 
Boilers; and Industrial Boiler/Process Heater Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT). Non-EGU point source control factors were 
not included in the inventory for the District. Area source control 
factors that applied for the District of Columbia included the 2001 OTC 
model rules (consumer products, architectural and industrial 
maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers, and mobile 
equipment repair and refinishing; and solvent cleaning); and on-board 
vapor recovery. In addition, Federally-enforceable controls were 
incorporated in the EGU and mobile source models. These include CAIR; 
the Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for non-road trucks 
and buses; the Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for the on-road 
vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle 
controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules.
    The District of Columbia also relied on emission reductions from 
various Federal MACT rules in the development of the 2018 emission 
inventory projections. These MACT rules include the combustion turbine 
and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACT, the industrial 
boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7, and 10 year MACT 
standards. On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals 
mandated the vacatur and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\5\ 
This MACT was vacated since it was directly affected by the vacatur and 
remand of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) 
Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 
address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final 
rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The District of Columbia's 
modeling included emission reductions from the vacated Industrial 
Boiler MACT rule. The District of Columbia did not redo its modeling 
analysis when the rule was re-issued. However, the expected reductions 
in SO2 and PM are small relative to the District of 
Columbia's inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of 
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by 
2014, it provides the District of Columbia time to assure the required 
controls are in place prior to the end of the first implementation 
period in 2018. In addition, the RHR requires that any resulting 
differences between emissions projections and actual emissions 
reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-year review 
prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The other emissions control scenario MANE-VU considered was a 
``beyond on the way'' (BOTW) scenario that included potential 
additional control measures to attain the ozone and fine particulate 
NAAQS and to meet regional haze goals. Non-EGU point source controls 
included NOX measures (asphalt production plants; cement 
kilns; glass and fiberglass furnaces; low sulfur heating oil for 
commercial and institutional units; and ICI boilers using natural gas, 
2 or 4 or 6 fuel oil, and coal); one primary 
PM10 and PM2.5 measure (commercial heating oil); 
SO2 measures (commercial heating oil and ICI boilers using 
2 or 4 or 6 fuel oil and coal); and a VOC 
measure (adhesives and sealants application). Area source control 
factors included NOX measures (ICI boilers using natural 
gas, 2 and 4 and 6 fuel oil, and coal; and 
residential and commercial home heating oil); primary PM10 
and PM2.5 measures (residential and commercial home heating 
oil); SO2 measures (residential and commercial home heating 
oil and ICI boilers using distillate oil); and VOC measures (adhesives 
and sealants; emulsified and cutback asphalt paving; consumer products; 
and portable fuel containers). Additional potential and reasonable 
measures were analyzed using a four factor analysis. The list of 
measures was further refined and incorporated into a second BOTW, or 
``best and final'' inventory, and included a ``top 167 EGU stacks 
strategy''; a low sulfur fuel strategy (including second phase, to 15 
parts per million (ppm) limit); a BART implementation strategy; and a 
continued evaluation of additional control measures. For the District 
of Columbia, the difference between the two BOTW inventories is 
negligible.
    Since the District of Columbia does not contribute more than 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ to visibility impairment at any Class I area, the District 
chose not to adopt some measures in the BOTW or ``best and final'' 
scenarios and selected as its long-term strategy the OTB/W scenario. 
EPA is proposing to find that the control measures in the OTB/W 
scenario are reasonable for the District's long-term strategy because 
the District's contribution to regional haze is less than the 0.1 
[mu]g/m\3\ and two percent sulfate thresholds established by MANE-VU. 
The District's long-term strategy is not the same as the long-term 
strategy recommended by MANE-VU, but emission reductions will provide 
sufficient emissions reductions for the

[[Page 70937]]

District to obtain its share of the of the emissions reductions needed 
to meet the reasonable progress goal for the five Class I areas within 
300 kilometers of the District of Columbia. Tables 1 and 2 are 
summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 estimated emissions inventories 
for the District of Columbia based on the OTB/W scenario. The 2018 
estimated emissions include emission growth as well as emission 
reductions due to ongoing emission control strategies, BART, and 
reasonable progress goals.

             Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for the District of Columbia in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................           69          780          132          161            4          963
Area..............................        6,432        1,644          805        3,269           14        1,337
On-Road Mobile....................        4,895        8,902          153          222          398          271
Off-Road Mobile...................        2,073        3,571          299          310            2          375
Biogenic..........................        1,726           30  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       14,033       15,689        1,389        3,962          422        2,946
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for the District of Columbia ``OTB/W'' in Tons per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................           90          630          263          302           17          863
Area..............................        5,255        2,259          917        3,825           17        1,632
On-Road Mobile....................        1,797        1,717           58           65          438           41
Off-Road Mobile...................        1,369        1,815          124          135            3            5
Biogenic..........................        1,726           30  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       10,237        6,551        1,362        4,326          474        2,541
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling to Support the Long-Term Strategy and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze long-term strategy 
for the 11 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of 
Columbia. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that 
began with selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following 
modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania 
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling 
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of 
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission 
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable 
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional 
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and 
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is an Eulerian grid model that was 
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the 
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF), 
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access 
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at 
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that 
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent 
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling 
grid of 36 x 36 km grid cells that covers the continental United 
States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a 
representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline 
air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due 
to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU 
conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the 
entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of 
meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU 
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located 
at 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

[[Page 70938]]

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

[[Page 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          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

[[Page 70940]]

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
```