[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24617-24621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10910]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0267; FRL-9962-74-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) through
the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE).
The District's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP).
EPA is proposing approval of the District's SIP revision because EPA
has determined that it satisfactorily addresses the progress report and
adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period
for regional haze. This action is being taken under the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0267 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 2, 2016, the District submitted, as
a SIP revision (progress report SIP), a report on progress made for
visibility improvement in the first implementation period. This
progress report SIP included a determination that the existing regional
haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals.
I. Background
States are required to submit, in the form of a SIP revision, a
progress report that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I federal area within the state and in each mandatory
Class I federal area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On October 27, 2011,
DOEE submitted its first regional haze SIP in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. On February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5191), EPA
approved the District's first regional haze SIP. The District submitted
its first progress report SIP on March 2, 2016 prior to the October 27,
2016 due date.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and
Adequacy Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision that addresses, at a minimum, the seven
elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in
section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the progress report
requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status
of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of
emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility
conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of
changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5)
an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions
within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the
sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the
state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the
adequacy determination requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to
either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further
substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that
participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines
that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or
[[Page 24618]]
more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or
(4) revise its regional haze SIP to address deficiencies within one
year if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or
may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I
areas due to emissions from sources within the state.
III. The District's Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination and EPA's Analysis
A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be
addressed by the progress report under the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g); how the District's progress report SIP addressed each
element; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether
the District satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of
the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional
haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside
the state. The District evaluated the status of all measures included
in its 2011 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The measures included applicable federal programs
(e.g., mobile source rules, maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards, and federal and state control strategies for electric
generating units (EGUs) such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and state regulations for
EGUs). The District's summary includes a discussion of the benefits
associated with each measure and quantifies those benefits wherever
possible. The progress report SIP also discusses the status and
implementation of the best available retrofit technology (BART)
determinations. The District's 2011 regional haze SIP submittal
addressed its two BART eligible units at one facility through a permit
condition requiring the shut down of each unit by December 17, 2012.
The District's progress report SIP confirms that these units have been
shutdown.\1\ Finally, the District's progress report SIP discusses
implementation of additional regulations and requirements developed
after the original regional haze SIP was prepared. Some of these
regulations and requirements include the District's low sulfur fuel oil
regulations and additional air toxics and hazardous air pollution
regulations which became applicable after the District's regional haze
SIP was submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In summary, the District had no BART subject sources because
its only BART eligible units received a permit to shut down and
subsequently did in fact permanently retire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that the District's analysis adequately
addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In the regional
haze SIP, the District documents the implementation status of measures
from its regional haze SIP and describes additional measures that came
into effect since the District's regional haze SIP was completed,
including new regulations and various federal measures. EPA proposes to
conclude that the District has adequately addressed the status of
control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), by discussing the status of key
measures that were relied upon in the first implementation period.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require the state to
provide a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state
through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1). The district provided an assessment of the following
visibility impairing pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3). The
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), the regional
planning organization (RPO) of which the District is a member, had
determined for the initial round of regional haze SIPs that the largest
contributor to visibility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern states is SO2. Therefore, the District provided
additional information on SO2 emissions from stationary
sources. Overall, the District states that emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants have decreased significantly. Emissions for all of
the analyzed visibility impairing pollutants provided for year 2011
(the last year for which a comprehensive national emissions inventory
(NEI) is available) demonstrate large decreases from the District's
baseline emissions in 2002. In addition to the 2002 and 2011 emissions
data which is presented in Table 1, stationary source SO2
emissions are also presented in Table 2 for the same years. Overall,
the District demonstrated emissions reductions in visibility impairing
pollutants from the 2002 baseline emissions to the 2011 NEI emissions
for the same pollutants (see Table 1 below); the District also
demonstrated emissions reductions of SO2 emissions from
stationary sources (see Table 2 below); therefore, EPA proposes to
conclude that the District has adequately addressed the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) with its summary of large emissions
reductions of visibility imparing pollutants.
Table 1--Pollutant Emissions
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2011 emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................... 2,946 1,829
PM10.............................. 6,986 3,410
PM2.5............................. 1,613 1,361
NOX............................... 14,897 9,418
VOC............................... 13,469 9,195
NH3............................... 418 330
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24619]]
Table 2--Point Source SO2 Emissions
[Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2011 emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
963 788
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with
Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired
and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms
of five-year averages of these annual values: \2\ (1) Current
visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the change in
visibility impairment over the past five years. The District does not
have any Class I areas; therefore, no visibility data is required to be
analyzed for this element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis
tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the
state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on
the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report
SIP, the District presents emissions inventories for 2002, 2008, and
2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). The pollutants inventoried include
VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, PM10,
NH3, and SO2. The emissions inventories include
the following source classifications: Stationary point and area
sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources. The inventories that are
compared for the five year span are 2008 to 2011. Although this time
period does not encompass five years, the 2008 and 2011 inventories
were the only comprehensive inventories available at the time the
District prepared its progress report SIP revision. Table 3 presents
the 2008, 2011, and projected 2018 emissions data. Comparison of 2008
and 2011 data shows decreases in all of the visiblitity imparing
pollutants except for SO2. But comparison of 2008, 2011, and
projected 2018 data shows that there is an overall downward trend in
SO2 emissions. Additionally, the SO2 emisions
from point sources within the District have decreased since the 2002
base year. Table 4 presents the point source SO2 emissions
showing an overall downward trend in emissions since 2002.
Table 3--Pollutant Emissions
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 emissions 2011 emissions 2018 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.................................................... 1,273 1,829 769
PM10................................................... 5,211 3,410 1,999
PM2.5.................................................. 1,694 1,361 508
NOX.................................................... 13,205 9,418 6,491
VOC.................................................... 11,815 9,195 8,247
NH3.................................................... 354 330 475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Point Source SO2 Emissions
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 emissions 2008 emissions 2011 emissions 2018 emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
963 343 788 564
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to conclude that the District has adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While, ideally, the five-
year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the five-
year time period between submittal of the current regional haze SIP and
the progress report, availability of quality-assured data may not
always correspond with this period. Therefore, EPA believes that there
is some flexibility in the five-year time period states can select for
tracking emissions changes to meet this requirement where more recent
data is not available. EPA believes that the District presented an
adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for the key visibility
impairing pollutant, SO2, since 2008 to reflect trends over
an approximate five year period (from when initial regional haze SIPs
were due to EPA under the CAA in 2007) using the emissions data
available to the District. Even though there is an increase in
SO2 emissions between 2008 and 2011 within the District,
these emissions are largely due to an increased combustion of fuel oil
in the District. However, the SO2 emissions are projected to
decrease even further by 2018 as compared to the baseline 2002
emissions, as the District has implemented regulations to lower the
sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in the District.\3\ EPA notes that
with the closure of the District's only EGUs at Pepco's Benning Road,
the District did not have access to further SO2 or
NOX emissions data from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division
which could have supplemented inventory analysis. EPA proposes to find
that the District provided sufficient information to support the
representativeness of the five-year period it evaluated. EPA proposes
to find that the District has adequately addressed the provisions under
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing
pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over five
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The District submitted its lower sulfur fuel oil regulations
to EPA as a SIP revision on January 20, 2016. Because these
regulations are already effective within the District, EPA expects
SO2 emissions from combustion of fuel oil to decrease by
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside
the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
[[Page 24620]]
emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the
state's sources. The District's sources do not impact any Class I areas
as was stated in the District's first regional haze SIP revision, which
EPA approved on February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5191).\4\ In addition, the
District does not have any Class I areas. Emissions reductions are
discussed in EPA's analysis of the District's submittal to meet the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). Because the District demonstrated
that there are no significant changes in emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants that would impede visibility improvement in Class
I areas and demonstrated emissions decreases in key visibility
impairing polltuants by 2018 and because no Class I areas are impacted
by emissions from within the District, EPA proposes to find that the
District has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA notes that no state identified sources within the
District as contributing to visibility impairment in Class I areas
within their borders. See 77 FR 5191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of
whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the
state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. The District does not contain any Class I
areas, and emissions from the District were found to not impact any
Class I areas.\5\ As discussed previously, emissions of all visibility
impairing pollutants have decreased since 2002. As discussed in the
District's progress report SIP, further reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants, including SO2 which is the primary
contributor to visbility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
states, are expected by the District from implementation of further
pollution reducing measures affecting mobile sources and stationary
sources including MACT standards and mobile source regulations.
Although there are slight increases in NH3, there is an
overall downward trend when looking at all visibility impairing
pollutants, especially SO2, which was determined to be the
primary contributor to visibility impairment in the District's first
regional haze SIP. Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that the
District has addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) because its current regional
haze SIP is sufficient to enable other nearby states to meet their
RPGs, particularly as the District was not identified as contributing
to any impairment in such Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The District's progress report SIP did provide data for the
Brigantine federal Class I area in New Jersey which showed
Brigantine is on track to meet or exceed its RPGs by 2018. However,
emissions from the District were not identified as contributing to
visibility impairment in Brigantine and such information from the
District was provided for illustrative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of a
state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing
pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the
monitoring strategy are necessary. The District does not contain any
Class I areas. In its progress report SIP, the District states that
there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it is
not required to fulfill this provision. EPA proposes to conclude that
the District is exempt from addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7), as that requirement is solely for states with Class I
areas in their borders.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: The
action taken by the District under 40 CFR 51.308(h); the District's
rationale for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed
determination regarding the District's action.
In its progress report SIP, the District submitted a negative
declaration that it had determined that the existing regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class
I areas (as the District does not have any Class I areas nor does it
impact any Class I areas). The basis for the District's negative
declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in
section III of this rulemaking action), including the findings that:
SO2 emissions from sources within the District have
decreased; SO2 emissions have been identified as the primary
contributor to visbility impairment in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
states; emissions of other visibility impairing pollutants (including
NOX, VOC, PM10, PM2.5) demonstrate a
decreasing trend; and additional control measures not relied upon in
the District's regional haze SIP, which are expected to yield further
reduction in emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, have been
and are being implemented.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA notes that in reviewing progress report SIP submissions
from other states, including Delaware, West Virginia and Virginia,
the Agency has found that Class I areas in the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeast region are on track to reach RPGs for the first
implementation period, which ends in 2018. See 79 FR 25506 (May 5,
2014) (approval of Delaware's progress report SIP); 79 FR 25019 (May
2, 2014) (approval of Virginia's progress report SIP); and 80 FR
32019 (June 5, 2015) (approval of West Virginia's progress report
SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that the District adequately
addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h), because decreasing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, lack of Class I area
impact from pollution sources within the District, and progress of
regional Class I areas near the District towards RPGs for 2018 indicate
that no further revisions to the District's SIP are necessary for this
first regional haze implementation period. EPA solicits comments on
this proposal.
IV. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the District's regional haze five-year
progress report SIP revision, submitted on March 2, 2016, as meeting
the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and 51.308(h).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing to include in a final
EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the District of Columbia's progress report
SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region
III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions
[[Page 24621]]
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, which proposes approval of the
District's progress report SIP, 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 5, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-10910 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P