82 FR 24617 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 102 (May 30, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 102 (May 30, 2017)
| Page Range | 24617-24621 | |
| FR Document | 2017-10910 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 24617-24621] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules 24617
not have tribal implications as specified ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, haze SIP. On October 27, 2011, DOEE
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– submitted its first regional haze SIP in
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is OAR–2016–0267 at https:// accordance with the requirements of 40
not approved to apply in Indian country www.regulations.gov, or via email to CFR 51.308. On February 2, 2012 (77 FR
located in the state, and EPA notes that rehn.brian@epa.gov. For comments 5191), EPA approved the District’s first
it will not impose substantial direct submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the regional haze SIP. The District
costs on tribal governments or preempt online instructions for submitting submitted its first progress report SIP on
tribal law. comments. Once submitted, comments March 2, 2016 prior to the October 27,
cannot be edited or removed from 2016 due date.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Regulations.gov. For either manner of II. Requirements for the Regional Haze
Environmental protection, Air submission, EPA may publish any Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
pollution control, Incorporation by comment received to its public docket. Determinations
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Do not submit electronically any
Particulate matter, Reporting and information you consider to be Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur confidential business information (CBI) submit a regional haze progress report
oxides, Volatile organic compounds. or other information whose disclosure is as a SIP revision that addresses, at a
restricted by statute. Multimedia minimum, the seven elements found in
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
Dated: March 6, 2017. further detail in section III of this
accompanied by a written comment.
Cecil Rodrigues, rulemaking action, to meet the progress
The written comment is considered the
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. official comment and should include report requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g)
[FR Doc. 2017–10913 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am] discussion of all points you wish to requires: (1) A description of the status
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P make. EPA will generally not consider of measures in the approved regional
comments or comment contents located haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions
outside of the primary submission (i.e. reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION on the web, cloud, or other file sharing of visibility conditions for each Class I
AGENCY system). For additional submission area in the state; (4) an analysis of
methods, please contact the person changes in emissions from sources and
40 CFR Part 52 activities within the state; (5) an
identified in the FOR FURTHER
assessment of any significant changes in
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0267; FRL–9962–74– INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
Region 3] anthropogenic emissions within or
full EPA public comment policy,
outside the state that have limited or
information about CBI or multimedia
Approval and Promulgation of Air impeded progress in Class I areas
submissions, and general guidance on
Quality Implementation Plans; District impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an
making effective comments, please visit
of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year assessment of the sufficiency of the
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Progress Report State Implementation approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a
commenting-epa-dockets.
Plan review of the state’s visibility
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara monitoring strategy.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
Agency (EPA). at calcinore.sara@epa.gov. required to submit, at the same time as
ACTION: Proposed rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March the progress report SIP, a determination
2, 2016, the District submitted, as a SIP of the adequacy of their existing
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection revision (progress report SIP), a report regional haze SIP and to take one of four
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of on progress made for visibility possible actions based on information in
a revision to the District of Columbia improvement in the first the progress report. As described in
State Implementation Plan (SIP) implementation period. This progress further detail in section III of this
submitted by the District of Columbia report SIP included a determination that rulemaking action, to meet the adequacy
(the District) through the District of the existing regional haze SIP requires determination requirement, 40 CFR
Columbia Department of Energy and no substantive revision to achieve the 51.308(h) requires states to either: (1)
Environment (DOEE). The District’s SIP established regional haze visibility Submit a negative declaration to EPA
revision addresses requirements of the improvement and emissions reduction that no further substantive revision to
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules goals. the state’s existing regional haze SIP is
that require states to submit periodic needed; (2) provide notification to EPA
reports describing progress towards I. Background (and other state(s) that participated in
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) States are required to submit, in the the regional planning process) if the
established for regional haze and a form of a SIP revision, a progress report state determines that its existing
determination of the adequacy of the that evaluates progress towards the regional haze SIP is or may be
state’s existing SIP addressing regional RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal inadequate to ensure reasonable
haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is area within the state and in each progress at one or more Class I areas due
proposing approval of the District’s SIP mandatory Class I federal area outside to emissions from sources in other
revision because EPA has determined the state which may be affected by state(s) that participated in the regional
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
that it satisfactorily addresses the emissions from within the state. See 40 planning process, and collaborate with
progress report and adequacy CFR 51.308(g). States are also required these other state(s) to develop additional
determination requirements for the first to submit, at the same time as the strategies to address deficiencies; (3)
implementation period for regional progress report, a determination of the provide notification with supporting
haze. This action is being taken under adequacy of the state’s existing regional information to EPA if the state
the CAA. haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The determines that its existing regional
DATES: Written comments must be progress report SIP is due five years haze SIP is or may be inadequate to
received on or before June 29, 2017. after submittal of the initial regional ensure reasonable progress at one or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24719/page/1.svg)
![24618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
more Class I areas due to emissions from implementation of the best available provided an assessment of the following
sources in another country; or (4) revise retrofit technology (BART) visibility impairing pollutants: sulfur
its regional haze SIP to address determinations. The District’s 2011 dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
deficiencies within one year if the state regional haze SIP submittal addressed fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse
determines that its existing regional its two BART eligible units at one particulate matter (PM10), volatile
haze SIP is or may be inadequate to facility through a permit condition organic compounds (VOC), and
ensure reasonable progress in one or requiring the shut down of each unit by ammonia (NH3). The Mid-Atlantic/
more Class I areas due to emissions from December 17, 2012. The District’s Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU),
sources within the state. progress report SIP confirms that these the regional planning organization
III. The District’s Regional Haze units have been shutdown.1 Finally, the (RPO) of which the District is a member,
Progress Report and Adequacy District’s progress report SIP discusses had determined for the initial round of
Determination and EPA’s Analysis implementation of additional regional haze SIPs that the largest
regulations and requirements developed contributor to visibility impairment in
A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs after the original regional haze SIP was the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern
This section summarizes each of the prepared. Some of these regulations and states is SO2. Therefore, the District
seven elements that must be addressed requirements include the District’s low provided additional information on SO2
by the progress report under the sulfur fuel oil regulations and additional emissions from stationary sources.
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g); how the air toxics and hazardous air pollution Overall, the District states that
District’s progress report SIP addressed regulations which became applicable emissions of visibility impairing
each element; and EPA’s analysis and after the District’s regional haze SIP was pollutants have decreased significantly.
proposed determination as to whether submitted. Emissions for all of the analyzed
the District satisfied each element. EPA proposes to find that the visibility impairing pollutants provided
The provisions under 40 CFR District’s analysis adequately addresses for year 2011 (the last year for which a
51.308(g)(1) require a description of the the provisions under 40 CFR comprehensive national emissions
status of implementation of all measures 51.308(g)(1). In the regional haze SIP, inventory (NEI) is available)
included in the regional haze SIP for the District documents the demonstrate large decreases from the
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both implementation status of measures from District’s baseline emissions in 2002. In
within and outside the state. The its regional haze SIP and describes addition to the 2002 and 2011 emissions
District evaluated the status of all additional measures that came into data which is presented in Table 1,
measures included in its 2011 regional effect since the District’s regional haze stationary source SO2 emissions are also
haze SIP in accordance with the SIP was completed, including new presented in Table 2 for the same years.
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). regulations and various federal Overall, the District demonstrated
The measures included applicable measures. EPA proposes to conclude emissions reductions in visibility
federal programs (e.g., mobile source that the District has adequately impairing pollutants from the 2002
rules, maximum achievable control addressed the status of control measures baseline emissions to the 2011 NEI
technology (MACT) standards, and in its regional haze SIP, as required by emissions for the same pollutants (see
federal and state control strategies for the provisions under 40 CFR Table 1 below); the District also
electric generating units (EGUs) such as 51.308(g)(1), by discussing the status of demonstrated emissions reductions of
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), key measures that were relied upon in SO2 emissions from stationary sources
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the first implementation period. (see Table 2 below); therefore, EPA
and state regulations for EGUs). The The provisions under 40 CFR proposes to conclude that the District
District’s summary includes a 51.308(g)(2) require the state to provide has adequately addressed the
discussion of the benefits associated a summary of the emissions reductions requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2)
with each measure and quantifies those achieved in the state through the with its summary of large emissions
benefits wherever possible. The progress measures subject to the requirements reductions of visibility imparing
report SIP also discusses the status and under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The district 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
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 In summary, the District had no BART subject received a permit to shut down and subsequently
sources because its only BART eligible units did in fact permanently retire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24719/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules 24619
TABLE 2—POINT SOURCE SO2 Class I areas; therefore, no visibility data five year span are 2008 to 2011.
EMISSIONS is required to be analyzed for this Although this time period does not
[Tons per year]
element. encompass five years, the 2008 and
The provisions under 40 CFR 2011 inventories were the only
51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking comprehensive inventories available at
2002 emissions 2011 emissions
emissions changes of visibility- the time the District prepared its
963 788 impairing pollutants from the state’s progress report SIP revision. Table 3
sources by type or category over the past presents the 2008, 2011, and projected
five years based on the most recent
The provisions under 40 CFR 2018 emissions data. Comparison of
updated emissions inventory. In its
51.308(g)(3) require that states with 2008 and 2011 data shows decreases in
progress report SIP, the District presents
Class I areas provide the following emissions inventories for 2002, 2008, all of the visiblitity imparing pollutants
information for the most impaired and and 2011, as well as projected except for SO2. But comparison of 2008,
least impaired days for each area, with inventories for 2018, in accordance with 2011, and projected 2018 data shows
values expressed in terms of five-year the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). that there is an overall downward trend
averages of these annual values: 2 (1) The pollutants inventoried include in SO2 emissions. Additionally, the SO2
Current visibility conditions; (2) the VOCs, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3, and SO2. emisions from point sources within the
difference between current visibility The emissions inventories include the District have decreased since the 2002
conditions and baseline visibility following source classifications: base year. Table 4 presents the point
conditions; and (3) the change in Stationary point and area sources, off- source SO2 emissions showing an
visibility impairment over the past five road and on-road mobile sources. The overall downward trend in emissions
years. The District does not have any inventories that are compared for the 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 approximate five year period (from Markets Division which could have
District has adequately addressed the when initial regional haze SIPs were supplemented inventory analysis. EPA
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). due to EPA under the CAA in 2007) proposes to find that the District
While, ideally, the five-year period to be using the emissions data available to the provided sufficient information to
analyzed for emissions inventory District. Even though there is an support the representativeness of the
changes is the five-year time period increase in SO2 emissions between 2008 five-year period it evaluated. EPA
between submittal of the current and 2011 within the District, these proposes to find that the District has
regional haze SIP and the progress emissions are largely due to an adequately addressed the provisions
report, availability of quality-assured increased combustion of fuel oil in the under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) tracking
data may not always correspond with District. However, the SO2 emissions are emissions changes of visibility-
this period. Therefore, EPA believes that projected to decrease even further by impairing pollutants from the state’s
there is some flexibility in the five-year 2018 as compared to the baseline 2002 sources by type or category over five
time period states can select for tracking emissions, as the District has years.
emissions changes to meet this implemented regulations to lower the The provisions under 40 CFR
requirement where more recent data is sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of
not available. EPA believes that the the District.3 EPA notes that with the any significant changes in
District presented an adequate analysis closure of the District’s only EGUs at anthropogenic emissions within or
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
tracking emissions trends for the key Pepco’s Benning Road, the District did outside the state that have occurred over
visibility impairing pollutant, SO2, since not have access to further SO2 or NOX the past five years that have limited or
2008 to reflect trends over an emissions data from EPA’s Clean Air impeded progress in reducing pollutant
2 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a 2016. Because these regulations are already
days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301. effective within the District, EPA expects SO2
visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 3 The District submitted its lower sulfur fuel oil emissions from combustion of fuel oil to decrease
the twenty percent of monitored days in a calendar by 2018.
regulations to EPA as a SIP revision on January 20,
year with the highest and lowest amount of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24719/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules 24621
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave. Seattle, WA
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); AGENCY 98101; telephone number: (206) 553–
• is certified as not having a 6357; email address: hall.kristin@
40 CFR Part 52 epa.gov.
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities [EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0333; FRL–9962–50– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Region 10] 22, 2017, the EPA published a proposed
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); rule to approve changes to the Oregon
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan (82 FR
• does not contain any unfunded Implementation Plans; Oregon: 14654). The changes, submitted by the
mandate or significantly or uniquely Permitting and General Rule State of Oregon on April 22, 2015,
affect small governments, as described Revisions; Reopening of Comment account for new federal requirements
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Period for fine particulate matter, update the
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); major and minor source pre-
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• does not have federalism Agency (EPA). construction permitting programs, and
implications as specified in Executive add state level air quality designations.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, The changes also address public notice
comment period.
1999); procedures for informational meetings,
• is not an economically significant SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection and tighten emission standards for dust
Agency (EPA) is reopening the public and smoke. A commenter requested
regulatory action based on health or
comment period on the proposed rule more time to review the proposal and
safety risks subject to Executive Order
‘‘Approval and Promulgation of prepare comments. In response to this
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Implementation Plans; Oregon: request, the EPA is reopening the public
• is not a significant regulatory action Permitting and General Rule Revisions’’ comment period.
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR published March 22, 2017. A Dated: April 26, 2017.
28355, May 22, 2001); commenter requested more time to Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
• is not subject to requirements of review the proposal and prepare Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Section 12(d) of the National comments. In response, the EPA is [FR Doc. 2017–10935 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
Technology Transfer and Advancement providing an additional 30 days for
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because public comment.
application of those requirements would DATES: For the proposed rule published
be inconsistent with the CAA; and March 22, 2017 (82 FR 14654), ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• does not provide EPA with the comments must be received on or before AGENCY
discretionary authority to address, as June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– [EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0086; FRL– 9962–24–
practicable and legally permissible OAR–2015–0333, at https:// Region 4]
methods, under Executive Order 12898 www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Air Plan Approval and Air Quality
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Once submitted, comments cannot be Designation; TN; Redesignation of the
In addition, this proposed rule, which edited or removed from regulations.gov. Knoxville 2006 24-Hour PM2.5
proposes approval of the District’s The EPA may publish any comment Nonattainment Area to Attainment
progress report SIP, does not have tribal received to its public docket. Do not
implications as specified by Executive AGENCY: Environmental Protection
electronically submit Confidential Agency (EPA).
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Business Information (CBI) or other
2000), because the SIP is not approved ACTION: Proposed rule.
information that is restricted from
to apply in Indian country located in the disclosure by statute. Please note that SUMMARY: On December 20, 2016,
state, and EPA notes that it will not multimedia submissions (audio, video, Tennessee, through the Tennessee
impose substantial direct costs on tribal etc.) must be accompanied by a written Department of Environment and
governments or preempt tribal law. comment. The written comment is Conservation (TDEC), submitted a
considered the official comment and request for the Environmental
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 should include discussion of all points Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate
Environmental protection, Air you wish to make. The EPA will the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette,
pollution control, Incorporation by generally not consider comments or TN fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
reference, Intergovernmental relations, comment contents located outside of the nonattainment area (hereinafter referred
primary submission (i.e. on the web, to as the ‘‘Knoxville Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Reporting and recordkeeping
additional submission methods, the full national ambient air quality standards
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile EPA public comment policy,
organic compounds. (NAAQS) and to approve a state
information about CBI or multimedia implementation plan (SIP) revision
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. submissions, and general guidance on containing a maintenance plan and a
Dated: May 5, 2017. making effective comments, please visit reasonably available control measures
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ (RACM) determination for the Area.
Cecil Rodrigues,
commenting-epa-dockets. EPA is proposing to approve
Regional Administrator, Region III.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tennessee’s RACM determination for
[FR Doc. 2017–10910 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of the Knoxville Area and incorporate it
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Air and Waste (OAW–150), into the SIP; to approve Tennessee’s
Environmental Protection Agency— plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:39 May 26, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM 30MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_24719/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-08 08:55:37
Document Modified: 2018-11-08 08:55:37
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017. | |
| Contact | Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 24617 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR